');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Slender Imagery Is Everywhere Yet Corpulence Is Still King
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      COTW comes from 216 in response to MikeatMikedotMike on a question I often find myself pondering–does the quotidian degeneracy of the contemporary Western world have to bust through institutions and organizations standing in opposition to it like a battering ram against a fortified gate, or does it merely lean up against rotted wooden planks and casually walk inside?

      There is also a subversive political and cultural force working to reduce fertility in the US and the West in general.

      Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification.

      The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever. A far larger share of voters express nationalist sentiments, but don’t vote for nationalist parties.

      Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.

      Regarding fertility, while America’s realized fertility has steadily declined, her ideal fertility has not. Since the GSS’ inception, the survey has asked respondents how many children a family should have. The ideal average number of children, by decade:

      1970s — 2.69
      1980s — 2.58
      1990s — 2.46
      2000s — 2.50
      2010s — 2.58

      After hitting an all time low in the mid-seventies, realized American fertility rebounded modestly through the nineties and oughts, but set new record lows at the end of the teens. There is no sign the decline will be arrested anytime soon. During the last fifty years, then, when ideal fertility was consistently above replacement, realized fertility was below it.

      Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

      Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low
      Exercising reproductive freedom is a good thing.
      RONALD BAILEY

      The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a 40-year low, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

      Back in 2014, I pointed out the strong correlation between women pursuing higher education and falling fertility rates. American women today earn around 60 percent of all college degrees. By age 31, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, almost 36 percent of women hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 28 percent of men. The Census Bureau notes that women with college degrees tend to have fewer children. That’s why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.

      Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That’s a good thing.

      Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

      The most profound thing president Trump has said during his tenure as chief executive is “the fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive”.

      GSS variables used: YEAR, CHLDIDEL(0-7)

       
      • Tags: COTW 
      Hide 275 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don’t oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don’t mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like ‘rotund’ become applicable.

        • Agree: JohnPlywood
        • Replies: @SFG
        Oh, enough with the white nationalists having every possible negative trait. They're very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.
        , @neutral
        How about you point out a single white nationalist that claims to love obese women?
        , @indocon
        Have some sympathy for men like Thomm, his ilk have choice among these women:
        https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000Agbe84vmM1g/s/850/850/0086-India-Allahabad-Maha-Kumbh-Mela-Women-Bath-Ganges-Worship-Pray-Water-container-2013.jpg
        , @anon

        They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.

         
        When Ansari here uses "WN" he is actually just attacking whites in general and using "WN" as cover. You should consider following your own TOS and prohibit these dehumanizing comments. Your forum is a lesser place by allowing this troll to monopolize the top comments. If not, then perhaps you should allow a retort of the same nature.

        Thomm:

        https://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5a5c725c28eecc6d0f8b4c9f-1333/aziz%20ansari%20golden%20globes.jpg

        Ladies. That's a real man's man. What Thomm wants:

        https://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Elsa-of-Arendelle-in-Frozen.jpg

        What Thomm will get, if he's lucky:

        https://i0.heartyhosting.com/radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kirstie-alley-weight-loss-new-diet-pp.jpg?resize=792%2C446&ssl=1

        usually blaming the Jews of course
         
        Deflection. Sometimes blame is deserved. That demographic has done a lot of harm. Sheldon Adelson threatens to "nuke" Iran on behalf of Israel. Adelson is Trump's largest donor. Surprise, we almost just got a war with Iran. I wonder how that happened? But there's nothing to see here. I'm sure. Move along. Consume product. Get ready for next product.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc
        , @AnotherDad
        Thomm, my deepest apologies that one of my brother pale-penis-people saddled up and rode your girlfriend. We're the best and some girls just have to have a taste.

        My sincere advice: get over it! There are plenty of fish in the sea. Millions of attractive young women enter the market every year. Work on being a better--and less silly and petulant--you.
      2. *pounds overweight.

      3. @Thomm
        Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don't oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don't mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like 'rotund' become applicable.

        Oh, enough with the white nationalists having every possible negative trait. They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.

        • Replies: @Thomm

        They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.
         
        No. In my experience, the 60% that are straight are undeterred by female obesity, and sometimes even prefer it. This, of course, is also true of black men.

        40% of WNs are gay, of course. They say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, as race loyalty trumps sexual orientation (which in their case was tenuous at best anyway).
      4. career, travel, and lifestyle

        “Career” is the name for what healthy people do to earn money.

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        “Lifestyle” is generally just a marketing euphemism for products and brands that deracinated people identify with…

        So REALLY we’re being encouraged to give away our patrimony for what amounts to “consumption, consumption, and consumption.”

        Always ennobling stuff from our libertarian friends. Accidentally insightful though.

        • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
        • Replies: @Toronto Russian

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs
         
        What are you talking about? Travel is one of the most pure and ancient forms of experiencing the joy of life.

        The Road goes ever on and on
        Down from the door where it began.
        Now far ahead the Road has gone,
        And I must follow, if I can,
        Pursuing it with eager feet,
        Until it joins some larger way
        Where many paths and errands meet.
        And whither then? I cannot say.
        - J.R.R. Tolkien
         
        People only became sedentary agriculturalists about ten thousand years ago, and were nomads for much much longer. How would they spread across the Earth up to Australia and the tip of South America, if they didn't feel the pull to explore new places? Of course hunger also made them move, but if they really didn't want to move they could limit their reproduction (hunter-gatherer tribes know infanticide and contraception by prolonged breastfeeding) and live in stasis. Even in the Middle Ages, at the height of "traditional" living there were paths of pilgrimage all over Europe, and people went there not only to pray but to enjoy themselves. The super-agrarian, super-sedentary, living under a government that limited people's movement very strictly, Edo Japan had its own tourist spots exalted by poets and artists - that's how natural and insuppressible the desire for travel is.

        Shaming and banning it (and other harmless forms of joy) for some ideology, let alone some changes in statistical numbers most people don't care about - that never does well. Ask communists.
        , @Rosie

        Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs
         
        Travel is wonderful, but like so many wonderful things, it's only wonderful for so long. After awhile, it's just more of the same, even when you go someplace new. I scratched that itch when I was young, and have never had any desire to travel much since then.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Perspicacious observation about travel. It's often held up as some sort of anti-consumerist virtue when it is merely another form of conspicuous, discretionary consumption. Instead of purchasing a physical pre-packaged product, they're purchasing a pre-packaged experience. It's like going to a sports game, but it's often treated as something significantly different.

        Do it if it's what you want to do, but know what it is you're doing.
      5. does the quotidian degeneracy of the contemporary Western world have to bust through institutions and organizations standing in opposition to it like a battering ram against a fortified gate,

        Exactly what institutions and organizations are standing in opposition to it?

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Touche.
      6. There is also a subversive political and cultural force working to reduce fertility in the US and the West in general.

        It’s called capitalism isn’t it?

        • Troll: 216
        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        OK, Doomer.
      7. Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been.

        Everyone believes that, but is it true?

        In England during Victorian times the urban working classes were notoriously puny and unhealthy. When the Empire suddenly needed cannon fodder in 1914 they found that many working class recruits had to be rejected on the grounds of physical unfitness. They weren’t fat but they were arguably in worse physical condition than even overweight modern Americans. The Victorian working classes were also noted for being much shorter than the middle and upper classes.

        Modern Americans may be the fattest people in history, but they’re not necessarily the most unhealthy.

        • Agree: Rosie
        • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Bill
        It's false for other reasons as well. When digging a ditch involved a shovel, it was easy to stay in shape. You did nothing and stayed in shape. Now that digging a ditch involves sitting on your ass in the cab of a backhoe, it is exceedingly hard to stay in shape. You have to actually do something.

        Even people in apparently sedentary jobs had to do things like walking up and down steps, walking to the bus/subway stop, etc. Now you ride the elevator down to the garage at work and drive your car to your (attached) garage at home.
        , @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
        I would say that modern American kids are probably healthier in that yeah, they're not 5-foot-nothing these days, and you don't see bandy legs due to rickets, or kids having to have all their teeth out by the time they're 20, but one thing that may make a difference is, they didn't grow up playing outside, climbing trees, wrestling, hunting squirrels, fishing etc., so they're really clumsy and the simplest mechanical things that are not a game controller tend to utterly alienate them. There's a muscle memory and body awareness that's developed in the kind of impromptu sports kids come up with that can only be instilled in childhood.

        Hand me a pocketknife at age 12 and I'd whittle out some other toys. Hand a modern kid a pocketknife at age 12 and get the band-aids ready. It might call for stitches.

        Even in the Army Oh so long ago around 1980, I was the only one w/o blisters after a long march since after all I was used to long walks, and barefoot too, and felt kinda left out. And I gained weight while my fellow recruits lost it. I thought Army food was great but I don't remember a lot of rave reviews among my fellows.
      8. Utterly missing the point.

        Decent people don’t have more children than they can REASONABLY support. That is the rock on which all first-world nations are built.

        In the crash of the Great Depression, the American Fertility rate fell because Americans don’t breed like rodents and generally don’t have more children than they can support (not even blacks, really) – even if they would LIKE more children.

        That low fertility rate did not spell doom – only terrific strength, as when the economy rebounded, it was not wiped out by every more mouths to feed. The fertility rate went up in the 1950’s, AFTER things got better. It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.

        The idea that Americans should breed like rodents and create massive poverty, so that the rich will no longer feel compelled to import ever more third-world refugees, is like commiting suicide to avoid the prospect of being murdered.

        Shut off the flood of people escaping the overpopulated hell of the modern third-world, and eventually wages and living conditions will rise, and yes, Americans will start having more children. But that would cost the rich profits, so we can’t talk about that, only scream and holler that Americans are ‘suicidial’ in not having more children than they can support.

        • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
        That's not what happened in Europe. Mass immigration was low in the 80s and 90s and they still had a plummeting fertility rate. Only in the 2010s has white fertility started to increase, as more refugees come in.
        , @Anon
        Wrong. In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased, and the percentage of people without friends has increased.

        People aren't having as many kids because increasing numbers of people aren't hacking it socially.
      9. Canto XLV
        BY EZRA POUND
        With Usura

        With usura hath no man a house of good stone
        each block cut smooth and well fitting
        that design might cover their face,
        with usura
        hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
        harpes et luz
        or where virgin receiveth message
        and halo projects from incision,
        with usura
        seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
        no picture is made to endure nor to live with
        but it is made to sell and sell quickly
        with usura, sin against nature,
        is thy bread ever more of stale rags
        is thy bread dry as paper,
        with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
        with usura the line grows thick
        with usura is no clear demarcation
        and no man can find site for his dwelling.
        Stonecutter is kept from his tone
        weaver is kept from his loom
        WITH USURA
        wool comes not to market
        sheep bringeth no gain with usura
        Usura is a murrain, usura
        blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
        and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
        came not by usura
        Duccio came not by usura
        nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
        nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
        Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
        Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
        Not by usura St. Trophime
        Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
        Usura rusteth the chisel
        It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
        It gnaweth the thread in the loom
        None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
        Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
        Emerald findeth no Memling
        Usura slayeth the child in the womb
        It stayeth the young man’s courting
        It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
        between the young bride and her bridegroom
        CONTRA NATURAM
        They have brought whores for Eleusis
        Corpses are set to banquet
        at behest of usura.

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        Outstanding poetry. Economic kookery.
      10. @Tulip
        Canto XLV
        BY EZRA POUND
        With Usura

        With usura hath no man a house of good stone
        each block cut smooth and well fitting
        that design might cover their face,
        with usura
        hath no man a painted paradise on his church wall
        harpes et luz
        or where virgin receiveth message
        and halo projects from incision,
        with usura
        seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
        no picture is made to endure nor to live with
        but it is made to sell and sell quickly
        with usura, sin against nature,
        is thy bread ever more of stale rags
        is thy bread dry as paper,
        with no mountain wheat, no strong flour
        with usura the line grows thick
        with usura is no clear demarcation
        and no man can find site for his dwelling.
        Stonecutter is kept from his tone
        weaver is kept from his loom
        WITH USURA
        wool comes not to market
        sheep bringeth no gain with usura
        Usura is a murrain, usura
        blunteth the needle in the maid’s hand
        and stoppeth the spinner’s cunning. Pietro Lombardo
        came not by usura
        Duccio came not by usura
        nor Pier della Francesca; Zuan Bellin’ not by usura
        nor was ‘La Calunnia’ painted.
        Came not by usura Angelico; came not Ambrogio Praedis,
        Came no church of cut stone signed: Adamo me fecit.
        Not by usura St. Trophime
        Not by usura Saint Hilaire,
        Usura rusteth the chisel
        It rusteth the craft and the craftsman
        It gnaweth the thread in the loom
        None learneth to weave gold in her pattern;
        Azure hath a canker by usura; cramoisi is unbroidered
        Emerald findeth no Memling
        Usura slayeth the child in the womb
        It stayeth the young man’s courting
        It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
        between the young bride and her bridegroom
        CONTRA NATURAM
        They have brought whores for Eleusis
        Corpses are set to banquet
        at behest of usura.

        Outstanding poetry. Economic kookery.

        • Replies: @Dumbo
        Why? Don't you think usury is bad?
        , @Dumbo
        Why? Don't you think usury is bad?
        , @Tulip
        1. Capable young people come out of college saddled with debt.

        2. Less capable young people go into labor market in which wages have been essentially stagnant for 50 years (thank you for the immigrants).

        3. Fed props up asset bubbles in the stock market and real estate market, while the government bails out the swindlers.

        4. Young people, even with means, cannot afford to buy housing or otherwise engage in the "American Dream" lifestyle that produces offspring.

        5. Not to mention "feminism", which was probably only initially intended to seduce nubile females into the clutches of lesbian crones, has the consequences driving men into either being gay or ordering Asian mail order brides, not to mention turning the women who should be having children into sexless worker drones climbing a meaningless corporate hierarchy, or prostituting themselves to investment bankers to pay off college debt. Not to mention helping to crater wages in the labor market.

        Manipulate the labor markets to freeze wages, prop up aggregate demand with private lending (that can't get paid back because of wage stall), then bail out the banks (shifting bad loans from private liability to public liability), and reduce the upcoming generation to debt-peonage through student loans, prop up asset bubbles, throw in some "austerity", and then rinse and repeat.

        Christen "capital gains" off government-induced asset bubbles as "economic growth" while aggregate production of goods and serves collapse, and no man can buy a house of good stone, and the young women are left selling their bodies to decrepit financiers to work their way out of debt -peonage.
      11. whether the West has the will to survive

        There where many after the last Roman emperor was deposed in 476 that this was just a temporary setback and the Roman empire was still around, this is the same now since the West died in 1942 at the battle of Stalingrad. Call the current civilization of being thralls to jew whatever you want, just don’t call it “Western”.

      12. @Thomm
        Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don't oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don't mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like 'rotund' become applicable.

        How about you point out a single white nationalist that claims to love obese women?

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        Just put him on ignore. Pure troll.
      13. Super-low fertility in Iran has to do with a quirk of Shia culture – its ‘temporary marriages’, essentially mosque-authorised prostitution – multiplying the general factoid, that Muslim fertility drops, the more that Muslim women are educated

        Iran makes the ‘mistake’ of educating its women more than, e.g., Saudi women, so that is one strike against big fertility

        But aside from that, Shia culture, has a peculiar institution where one of your four wives can be just for the weekend, with the ‘bridal gift’ taking the place of the prostitution fee … and this doesn’t change the arrangement at home with your ‘primary’ wife caring for your children

        You go to the imam at the mosque on Friday, get ‘married’, and then Sunday night – or even a matter of hours later – you get divorced by, if I recall correctly, saying the magic divorce word three times – talaq talaq talaq

        Apparently there are ‘marriage ads’ in Iran – ‘temporary wife available for weekend, €60’

        To understand the fanatic loyalty of Shia males, one should see that for them it is a patriarchal sexual paradise … you still have your submissive wife at home taking care of the tots, and then, if you have a little money, you have a constant stream of available ‘temporary wives’ when you are in the mood for ‘a little strange’, as Richard Gere described it in a film

        But this means that many Shia women who have sexually active years, are shoved out of an incentive system for having children

        So combined with modern birth control tech, Iran in 1979 constructed a full-scale Shia society, which was demographically destined to implode

        • Replies: @Dumbo
        That doesn't seem much different than legalized prostitution. How much does prostitution affect white fertility in the West? Not much, I would think.

        Now educating women, that certainly reduces fertility, and Persian women are on average more educated (smarter?) than Arab ones.

        It's actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don't know.
      14. @Brabantian
        Super-low fertility in Iran has to do with a quirk of Shia culture - its 'temporary marriages', essentially mosque-authorised prostitution - multiplying the general factoid, that Muslim fertility drops, the more that Muslim women are educated

        Iran makes the 'mistake' of educating its women more than, e.g., Saudi women, so that is one strike against big fertility

        But aside from that, Shia culture, has a peculiar institution where one of your four wives can be just for the weekend, with the 'bridal gift' taking the place of the prostitution fee ... and this doesn't change the arrangement at home with your 'primary' wife caring for your children

        You go to the imam at the mosque on Friday, get 'married', and then Sunday night - or even a matter of hours later - you get divorced by, if I recall correctly, saying the magic divorce word three times - talaq talaq talaq

        Apparently there are 'marriage ads' in Iran - 'temporary wife available for weekend, €60'

        To understand the fanatic loyalty of Shia males, one should see that for them it is a patriarchal sexual paradise ... you still have your submissive wife at home taking care of the tots, and then, if you have a little money, you have a constant stream of available 'temporary wives' when you are in the mood for 'a little strange', as Richard Gere described it in a film

        But this means that many Shia women who have sexually active years, are shoved out of an incentive system for having children

        So combined with modern birth control tech, Iran in 1979 constructed a full-scale Shia society, which was demographically destined to implode

        That doesn’t seem much different than legalized prostitution. How much does prostitution affect white fertility in the West? Not much, I would think.

        Now educating women, that certainly reduces fertility, and Persian women are on average more educated (smarter?) than Arab ones.

        It’s actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don’t know.

        • Replies: @Ash Williams

        It’s actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don’t know
         
        .

        How about instead of "educating" them that they are just as good as men in every way, and should be competing with them, we educate them about themselves (women are better at some things, men are better at others), and that they have a limited window to have children.

        ...And then, support them in their second career, if the first one they choose is to be a mother.
        , @JohnPlywood
        Infirm cucks such as yourself are the problem. Just KYS.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Educational attainment is inversely correlated with fertility among women like no other variable is. Nothing else comes close.
      15. The planet can’t take ten billion people who all want a car, fridge, washing machine/dryer, TV, laptop, mobile phone etc etc. We can’t keep living like this.

        • Replies: @Philip Owen
        Thorium reactors, vertical farming, near circular economy. At 10 BN we can even have a rewilding programme. 50 BN not so much perhaps. There is hope. Malthus was wrong in 1798. He is still wrong so far.
        , @songbird

        The planet can’t take ten billion people who all want a car, fridge, washing machine/dryer, TV, laptop, mobile phone etc etc
         
        I don't know about the rest of it, but TVs, laptops, and mobile phones are probably pretty easy to handle. Energy requirements are pretty low for optimized devices like ARM CPUs and LEDs. The monitor I am using now only uses like 17W and is comfortably large. And we are pretty good at recycling minerals and finding other sources, when we need to.

        Don't get me wrong: I am not some bleeding heart. I'd try to find the place that receives the most "Hey, cousin, come to Europe and go on welfare, and live like a king!" calls and drop an EMP on it.
      16. I’d be curious to hear from others if an observation I have I correct.

        To my eyes, fitness in America is becoming more bifurcated. I see more really fit people, both the lean running types and the cut and huge weight lifters, than ever before. I also see more grotesquely obese people than ever before. It seems like there is a decline of normal, reasonably fit but with love handles people.

        It’s tempting to draw a larger analogy about the decline of the middle class. People with the right combination of genes and discipline are increasing successful physically and financially. Those who lack those two traits are increasingly left behind.

        • Agree: res, Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Jay Fink
        I think if Americans from 50 years ago travelled to today they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won't be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture....that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.
      17. OK, enough. I support the executive, but to listen to him speak on this question w/o a sense of humility is tough.

        For nearly his entire life, he was a democrat and a supporter of some of the worst ethos eating away at the country’s civilization. He is correct, borders are important. And he was elected to improve that situtation — his border fence won’t cut it. Neither has his back pedalling on VISAS. He was an odd choice to speak on this question.

        —————————————

        “The idea that Americans should breed like rodents and create massive poverty, so that the rich will no longer feel compelled to import ever more third-world refugees, is like commiting suicide to avoid the prospect of being murdered.”

        you breed to sustain your population and protect your future. And few here are as tough as myself on immigration — but the erosion started from within.

        No. The big problem is encouraging national loyalty, while the leaders chosen to protect it won’t. And seem to glom on to any excuse to avoid it.

        ————————————-

        I appreciate women with legs, that usually means thing almost by definition. But these constant harangues about women sizes . . . are strange given that even overweight women successfully give birth and do so more than once.

        ————————————-

        “It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.”

        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don’t want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence — because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.

        I missed the boat on family and that is depressing. But my will to survive remains in tact. The support for the society I live in to survive i as expressed exceeds many here. I don’t think this president s the country’s last hope — but at the moment I am not convinced he serves as the example of what is needed for the US to survive, muchless western civilization. I don’t regret my vote. But I am more interested in the survival of the country.

        • Replies: @dfordoom


        “It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.”
         
        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don’t want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence — because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.
         
        Agreed. The idea that declining fertility is caused by immigration is complete nonsense.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none. As long as we think and behave as individuals fertility rates will remain very very low.

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) - these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.

        The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice.

        None of this has anything to do with immigration which is merely a response (and from their point of view a rational response even if it's thoroughly evil from society's point of view) by capitalists to the thing they most fear, which is that markets will cease to grow and corporate profits will therefore cease to grow. Immigration is the result of declining fertility rates, not the cause.
      18. @EliteCommInc.
        OK, enough. I support the executive, but to listen to him speak on this question w/o a sense of humility is tough.

        For nearly his entire life, he was a democrat and a supporter of some of the worst ethos eating away at the country's civilization. He is correct, borders are important. And he was elected to improve that situtation -- his border fence won't cut it. Neither has his back pedalling on VISAS. He was an odd choice to speak on this question.

        ---------------------------------------

        "The idea that Americans should breed like rodents and create massive poverty, so that the rich will no longer feel compelled to import ever more third-world refugees, is like commiting suicide to avoid the prospect of being murdered."


        you breed to sustain your population and protect your future. And few here are as tough as myself on immigration -- but the erosion started from within.

        No. The big problem is encouraging national loyalty, while the leaders chosen to protect it won't. And seem to glom on to any excuse to avoid it.

        -------------------------------------

        I appreciate women with legs, that usually means thing almost by definition. But these constant harangues about women sizes . . . are strange given that even overweight women successfully give birth and do so more than once.

        -------------------------------------

        "It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family."


        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don't want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence --- because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.

        I missed the boat on family and that is depressing. But my will to survive remains in tact. The support for the society I live in to survive i as expressed exceeds many here. I don't think this president s the country's last hope --- but at the moment I am not convinced he serves as the example of what is needed for the US to survive, muchless western civilization. I don't regret my vote. But I am more interested in the survival of the country.

        “It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.”

        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don’t want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence — because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.

        Agreed. The idea that declining fertility is caused by immigration is complete nonsense.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none. As long as we think and behave as individuals fertility rates will remain very very low.

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) – these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.

        The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice.

        None of this has anything to do with immigration which is merely a response (and from their point of view a rational response even if it’s thoroughly evil from society’s point of view) by capitalists to the thing they most fear, which is that markets will cease to grow and corporate profits will therefore cease to grow. Immigration is the result of declining fertility rates, not the cause.

        • Replies: @Twinkie

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community... these are very very unattractive choices
         
        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.
        , @Bill

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) – these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.
         
        The paragraph treats the view that "our individuality" is the highest value as the default assumption which can only be overcome by "some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment." Obviously, the view that "our individuality" is the highest value is, itself, a very deep religious or ideological commitment. The people who called this commitment into being and spread it throughout the West knew that.

        Really, what you are saying is that "the Enlightenment" is an evolutionarily dysfunctional thing, that it is contrary to natural law, that it is destined to die. From your lips to God's ear.
      19. @dfordoom


        There is also a subversive political and cultural force working to reduce fertility in the US and the West in general.
         

         
        It's called capitalism isn't it?

        OK, Doomer.

        • LOL: Rosie
      20. I had planned to reply to this comment a few days ago, but forgot.

        “Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification.”

        First, China isn’t a good example because they had a state mandated 1 child policy for 35 years. While it was likely impossible to enforce comprehensively, that by itself was enough to drive down total fertility. Perhaps I’m wrong but Japan seems to have come under quite a bit of Western influence since WWII, and they have quite a pornography following and also practice abortion (although neither to the extent of the US)

        Secondly, low fertility in other parts of the world does not disprove subversive influences in the West. I know little about Iran other than I don’t want to go to war with them, but their low fertility doesn’t somehow disprove the subversive efforts in the West.

        “The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever.”

        Again, the second sentence doesn’t prove the first, or even relate to it at all. Off the point, but I am curious to read about how sexualized imagery is supposed to assist in preventing obesity, seeing as most of us here are in agreement that ubiquitous sexual imagery has almost nothing but a negative effect upon people who consume it.

        To AE:

        “Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. ”

        With instant access to information via the internet, it has never been easier to optimize one’s life in all sorts of ways. Specific to fitness, for most people an hour of exercise doesn’t offset the ill effects of remaining sedentary for 8-12 hours a day. Most of the fitness industry is comprised of “get fit quick” fads and supplement scams. We have also been lied to about what is to be considered correct nutrition via the ridiculous “food pyramid,” the vilification of animal fats, and steered into a detrimental dependency upon carbohydrate based foods, which we are finally coming to realize are the cause of a great many serious health problems. I guess your point was to provide an example of how subversive efforts are overstated? 100 years ago (((clever))) marketers were able to convince people that smoking was healthy in general and enhanced femininity for women specifically. Oops!

        • Replies: @res

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.
         
        I was also going to reply to that statement by AE. Since it is something of an indirect reply to your comment as well I will do it here.

        AE, I think you are omitting an important causal factor (actually a cluster of them, but closely related). One aspect is MikeatMikedotMike's point about nutrition misinformation from the sources which are supposed to be impartial and/or trying to help us. That also translates into issues with institutional diets (e.g. school lunches). But more broadly:

        It requires much more conscious effort now to eat a healthy diet than it did in the past. Availability of everything has improved, but the biggest "improvement" is in the plethora of processed food available. Both in supermarkets and in "restaurants" (scare quotes because I mostly mean fast food here, though not exclusively).

        Even with the best intentions it can be difficult to avoid all of this. In particular, when social pressure is involved.

        Then add to that all of the work the processed food manufacturers do on palatability (and presumably on things that make people eat MORE of their product, e.g. insulin spikes/crashes will do that). I have been amazed by how bad my food cravings can be in certain situations.

        One thing I think worth considering is how the default food choices typically presented constitute an "anti-Nudge" as far as good health is concerned.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

        There is a reason we have ballooned in the last fifty years. Obviously our genes have not changed that much. I don't think human psychology has changed that much either (though I do think there are some vicious cycles here which food marketers exploit to our detriment).

        What has really changed is the environment we are saturated in. The good news is as you said--it has never been easier to achieve peak physical condition. The bad news is it is harder (IMHO, meaning you have to actively work at it) to achieve good physical condition now than it was fifty years ago because our default choices are worse. In particular, our food and lack of intrinsic day to day physical activity.

        In brief, both genes and psychology matter, but it is our environment which is making it so easy to become obese. And a big part of human psychology over all of time is many people have difficulty taking anything but the easy path.
        , @MikeatMikedotMike
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fp0VNxnODYM/UhOswyKrKbI/AAAAAAAADus/VzcNMFxE2PA/s1600/crickets.gif
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Few people are doing what they think they should be doing to achieve the results they want. I think psychology is a major reason why. That doesn't just apply to not doing compound movements at the gym, it also has to do with wasting time on cheap social media dopamine hits, etc.
      21. @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they’re the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you’re poorer.

        I was lucky – my part of the country has better local food options. If you’re in Appalachia somewhere, though, you’re stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        • Replies: @res

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you’re poorer.
         
        This!

        If you’re in Appalachia somewhere, though, you’re stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.
         
        It depends. Some rural areas are good places to find things like high quality milk and meat as well as fruits and vegetables either at farmstands or farmers markets. Sometimes at surprisingly reasonable prices. I'd say your part of Pennsylvania is a good example of that.

        But of course it is more work to seek out those sources than to just drive over to Wally World.
        , @Lars Porsena
        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I'd say this 'food desert' nonsense is nonsense. You don't need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don't notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options
         
        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) "local food options" means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.
        , @Alden
        Walmart and Grocery Outlet sell a full range of fruits and vegetables. And they’re all over the country. In California there’s the 99 cent stores. They don’t sell fresh meat, just bacon baloney etc. just staples canned and frozen food and produce.

        The one in my neighborhood has the best produce section I’ve ever seen. Better than Whole Foods Bristol farms and the rest of the expensive stores.

        Even the tomatoes are delicious. My mom had a big vegetable garden but I was never able to due to the fog and cold of the SF Bay Area. So I stopped eating rubber tomatoes. I don’t know where 99 cent store gets it’s tomatoes wherever it is they are real tomatoes.

        Trader Joe’s another chain that’s cheaper than supermarkets with a full range of fruits and vegetables. My local kosher market is very expensive as kosher markets are. But it always has huge bins out front with potatoes onions oranges apples pears watermelon and other seasonal melons for like 39 cents a pound.

        The other thing to remember is that seasonal produce is very cheap. Even in this era where produce comes from all over the world. Strawberry season 2 pound baskets for $1.00. All seasonal produce is cheap. Lettuce is always more expensive in winter. So women serve coleslaw with lots of grated carrots. Must be like 75 cents for salad for a family of 4 - 6. Even asparagus is cheap when in season.
        , @Ash Williams

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

         
        No.

        You have to have self-awareness, self-respect, and discipline.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        A person can eat well at WalMart.

        Easy in the sense that the tools available are more accessible than ever. There is a lot of competition for our time and attention, though, so fitness (among other laudable things) often gets edged out.
      22. @silviosilver
        Outstanding poetry. Economic kookery.

        Why? Don’t you think usury is bad?

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        "Usury," in the way it used by people who bellyache about it, is just a synonym for "credit." And no, credit isn't economically deleterious.
      23. @silviosilver
        Outstanding poetry. Economic kookery.

        Why? Don’t you think usury is bad?

      24. The article starts by discussing being overweight and them moves to discussing low birth rates as if there is an obvious connection, but I don’t think the two hang together because ideal BMI women tend to have fewer children than fat ones. A study of hunter-gatherers, found the age at first birth was the same age as when average weight for adult females in that population was reached. The foetus is principally nourished by the mother’s body fat ( critical to fertility). It’s not even that unheathy compared to being slim. A huge study among Norwegians found those with BMI 18-20 had lower life expectancy than BMI 34-36.

        EVIDENCE from all over the world suggests that men strongly prefer women who have a lot of body fat (roughly 30 percent of their body weight) and whose body fat is distributed in a particular way, with very little in the waist but much more in the hips, buttocks and thighs, producing a small waist-hip ratio. Why have men evolved to prefer such high levels of fat–more than bears settling down to hibernate or whales swimming in frigid waters? […] The rarest and most important brain fat is an omega-3 fat called DHA, and women systematically store the DHA they accumulate in their hips and thighs and then draw it down during pregnancy and nursing. Because omega-3 fats must come from the diet, they may often be in short supply. So, the “mysterious” male mating preference tracks women’s ability to build big-brained kids. This kind of male preference would have been very beneficial in a species like humans where brain size was evolving rapidly.

        Certain genes that lead to success in education (genes for intelligence) are more and more subject to associative mating . It is not education as much as the high IQ that leads to education, and that is why it is a children of the upper middle class thing. The genes for high IQ are associated with autism and autism is associated with anorexia. Anorexics tend to avoid sex.

        Spengler.
        The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of “mutual understanding.” It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful.

        Associative mating is very strong for autistic traits. It is now generations since women become common in the technical educational institutions and workplaces ) and associative mating has produced a lot more highly intelligent (explanation for the Flynn effect), but anti earth mother type female children.

        • Replies: @iffen
        So, the “mysterious” male mating preference tracks women’s ability to build big-brained kids.

        And don't forget that those extra-wide hips are great for birthing those big-headed babies.
        , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        Yes, but we all know there's a real difference between a "thick" woman and a "fat" woman.

        The West is full of fat women now.
        , @Anonymous
        Is it simply intelligence and an intellectual disposition, or material comfort and ensuing decadence?

        Even the most non intellectual, ditzy, airhead types, the trophy wives, or the lucky low class "peasant" girl who manages to land a high status wealthy man, once they get married to a wealthy man and have access to his resources, seem to shirk their motherly role and turn to all kinds of hired help to raise and assist in raising their kids. Even the most motherly among them appear not to replicate the peasant mother role under circumstances of material comfort and great resources, but seek diversions while using hired help and money to fulfill the motherly duties. These might not be intellectual diversions, but rather more feminine or motherly like diversions, but they are diversions all the same.
      25. Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

        So full of themselves that even call their magazine “Reason”. Libertarians are useless. I have a libertarian friend. Always cheering for open borders, liberation of drugs, and singing the beauties of corporate capitalism and globalist culture. At least leftists favor (in theory) some form of benefits for workers and social protection for those less well-off.

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.

        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don’t need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat. Today we just have too much food and too little need to move by ourselves. Gyms are a poor substitute for more natural activities. People don’t go to the gym for health reasons but to become more attractive for the other (or same) sex. However being overweight is usually a result of having bad discipline. Those people who are morbidly obese, I don’t even understand how they can get to that size. Just stop eating so much sugar, idiot.

        • Agree: Lost american
        • Replies: @Toronto Russian

        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don’t need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat.
         
        There is also play. Which is a fundamental need of healthy animals and was present in all cultures. Look at 17th century rich people skating - they could afford to just sleep and eat but did what was fun! Also hunting, ball games, fencing and jousting (that was noblemen's preparation for war, but they're exciting activities per se), dances and carnivals.

        https://i.redd.it/eo3k62uk1g211.jpg

        Today's rich people physical exercise is basically having fun in the open air (yachting, horse riding, skiing, swimming in beautiful tropical sea...), and exercise for commoners is tedious moving of some machine parts in a stuffy room. No wonder most people don't want it.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        I can't help myself:

        https://tenor.com/view/diet-dieting-eathealthy-eatinghealthy-healthyeating-gif-4652347
      26. I’ve recently read a lot of articles on Israeli family life, authors ranging from non-Jews who got there through marriage to an actual Haredi guy (their religion doesn’t allow them to watch television but allows to use computers, and there is such thing as Kosher Internet). The takeaway is they don’t achieve high fertility by heroically overcoming discomfort, but collectively make childrearing as comfortable as possible.

        The Haredi community will always watch over your kids if you need to go somewhere, or you can take them to your workplace (many women go to work to support their husbands who study the Torah all day) and you don’t end up stuck at home for years. There’s a lot of sharing/free renting of stuff. Fathers do not see walking with strollers and hands-on care of little kids as below them or unmanly. As a result, female life expectancy is 85.6 years – 1.5 years higher than of non-Haredi women with the same socioeconomic status. Having 7 kids is hard work, but for them it is eased enough to not wear down their bodies at a fast pace. For men it’s 3 years higher, so they also get the good end of the deal.

        Secular men do childcare and housework, to great excitement of Slavic Russian wives who aren’t used to such behaviour of fathers at all (most common number of children in the families of those Russian “patriarchs”: 1). The local community watches the kids as they play outdoors (if parents are supervising a child themselves they’re usually newcomers or tourists), the culture doesn’t demand of mothers to keep them always clean and well-behaved. Girls aren’t shoved into marriage and motherhood in their teens (no they don’t marry at 18 to avoid the army – it’s an important instrument of socialization, and there’s always alternative service for those who wish), but marry around 30 and try to give birth to 3 kids as quickly as possible (the William and Kate model so to say). The average age at first marriage is low because the Haredi pull it down.

        That’s basically it. Oh, and having 3 kids is Just What’s Done, and friends and relatives will pester a new married couple about it incessantly (but – it’s important – without any negativity or aggression that could provoke resistance). In the sphere of government social support for families, everything is quite boring and ordinary like in other developed countries.

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
        This is not different from what I've been saying. High fertility needs a community, an economy, and a culture that is organized around high fertility. Our culture is not. The individualists have taken it all over, so if you actually want to do those things anywhere else in the modern West, it really does take "heroic" effort.

        There are a lot of things that you could take for granted 60 years ago that no longer exist. The unofficial community parenting co-op, police who would keep the riffraff out, Sundays off to observe the Sabbath instead of working your pinche job, single wage earner families, a strong stigma against divorce, and so on.

        We could have this back if we wanted it, but we really don't and now the damage is irreparable. The consumerist-capitalist culture will have to completely collapse before we can get back to decency, and when we do it will be at a much lower level of social organization.
        , @Bill
        People say similar things about St Marys, Kansas which is a town taken over by traditionalist Catholics.
        , @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
        I've come across this in other internet sites. Among the ultra-orthodox, it's acknowledged that raising children is expensive, so what they've done is make it as easy and cheap as possible. Children's clothes are passed on when done with, there's tons of mutual help, and that plus other things as pretty much always eating home-cooked food from cheap staple ingredients ("Jewish" cuts of meat were always the cheaper stuff like the brisket and things like chicken liver) it's possible for them to raise large broods while it's next to impossible for the average American unless they really don't mind the vision of their kid having to sign onto the military once they hit 17-1/2 or live in the street.
      27. @Toronto Russian
        I've recently read a lot of articles on Israeli family life, authors ranging from non-Jews who got there through marriage to an actual Haredi guy (their religion doesn't allow them to watch television but allows to use computers, and there is such thing as Kosher Internet). The takeaway is they don't achieve high fertility by heroically overcoming discomfort, but collectively make childrearing as comfortable as possible.

        The Haredi community will always watch over your kids if you need to go somewhere, or you can take them to your workplace (many women go to work to support their husbands who study the Torah all day) and you don't end up stuck at home for years. There's a lot of sharing/free renting of stuff. Fathers do not see walking with strollers and hands-on care of little kids as below them or unmanly. As a result, female life expectancy is 85.6 years - 1.5 years higher than of non-Haredi women with the same socioeconomic status. Having 7 kids is hard work, but for them it is eased enough to not wear down their bodies at a fast pace. For men it's 3 years higher, so they also get the good end of the deal.

        Secular men do childcare and housework, to great excitement of Slavic Russian wives who aren't used to such behaviour of fathers at all (most common number of children in the families of those Russian "patriarchs": 1). The local community watches the kids as they play outdoors (if parents are supervising a child themselves they're usually newcomers or tourists), the culture doesn't demand of mothers to keep them always clean and well-behaved. Girls aren't shoved into marriage and motherhood in their teens (no they don't marry at 18 to avoid the army - it's an important instrument of socialization, and there's always alternative service for those who wish), but marry around 30 and try to give birth to 3 kids as quickly as possible (the William and Kate model so to say). The average age at first marriage is low because the Haredi pull it down.

        That's basically it. Oh, and having 3 kids is Just What's Done, and friends and relatives will pester a new married couple about it incessantly (but - it's important - without any negativity or aggression that could provoke resistance). In the sphere of government social support for families, everything is quite boring and ordinary like in other developed countries.

        This is not different from what I’ve been saying. High fertility needs a community, an economy, and a culture that is organized around high fertility. Our culture is not. The individualists have taken it all over, so if you actually want to do those things anywhere else in the modern West, it really does take “heroic” effort.

        There are a lot of things that you could take for granted 60 years ago that no longer exist. The unofficial community parenting co-op, police who would keep the riffraff out, Sundays off to observe the Sabbath instead of working your pinche job, single wage earner families, a strong stigma against divorce, and so on.

        We could have this back if we wanted it, but we really don’t and now the damage is irreparable. The consumerist-capitalist culture will have to completely collapse before we can get back to decency, and when we do it will be at a much lower level of social organization.

        • Replies: @Alden
        The unofficial cooperative parenting is well and good among Whites, city or suburbs. Police in all White suburbs and sections of cities do keep the blacks out. Mostly they give out tickets. But when they see a car with 3 black thugs in it they follow the thugs around till the thugs leave.

        Things aren’t as bad as some people think they are.
      28. This is retarded. Almost no one likes fat women. (I don’t mean slightly chubby, I mean fat). Even gays hate fat women. WNs prefer Asians. The reason many fat women end up with blacks, is that no one else wants them, and blacks will screw anything, especially if it’s white. For a woman, being fat is almost as bad as being an unathletic beta nerd is for a guy. You’re just not desirable to the other sex. I understand that it is difficult in this day and age not to be at least a bit overweight, but that is the unfortunate reality.

      29. We live in an extremely decadent society, in which self discipline as a virtue has been discarded. Instead it’s considered OK – even desirable – to exhibit emotional distress over not getting your way or not being perceived positively on politics, physical appearance, employment, etc. Highbrow publications are full of pieces in which the author moans over the difficulty of existing in a society in which their emotional comfort is not placed front and center, usually described as ’emotional labor.’ My social media feed is full of people who by any measure are near the top of society in terms of education and income but portray themselves as oppressed in some way due to being a woman, having more melanin, a supposed mental health issue, or whatever. It’s pathetic.

        Overall we’re incredibly soft, which is why it’s important for those of us who see our current culture clearly not to be. Inevitably there will be some event (economic, natural disaster, etc) in which the most resolute people will come out the other side in command of politics, the economy, and the culture.

        • Agree: Lost american
      30. @Anonymousse

        career, travel, and lifestyle
         
        “Career” is the name for what healthy people do to earn money.

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker - the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        “Lifestyle” is generally just a marketing euphemism for products and brands that deracinated people identify with...

        So REALLY we’re being encouraged to give away our patrimony for what amounts to “consumption, consumption, and consumption.”

        Always ennobling stuff from our libertarian friends. Accidentally insightful though.

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        What are you talking about? Travel is one of the most pure and ancient forms of experiencing the joy of life.

        The Road goes ever on and on
        Down from the door where it began.
        Now far ahead the Road has gone,
        And I must follow, if I can,
        Pursuing it with eager feet,
        Until it joins some larger way
        Where many paths and errands meet.
        And whither then? I cannot say.
        – J.R.R. Tolkien

        People only became sedentary agriculturalists about ten thousand years ago, and were nomads for much much longer. How would they spread across the Earth up to Australia and the tip of South America, if they didn’t feel the pull to explore new places? Of course hunger also made them move, but if they really didn’t want to move they could limit their reproduction (hunter-gatherer tribes know infanticide and contraception by prolonged breastfeeding) and live in stasis. Even in the Middle Ages, at the height of “traditional” living there were paths of pilgrimage all over Europe, and people went there not only to pray but to enjoy themselves. The super-agrarian, super-sedentary, living under a government that limited people’s movement very strictly, Edo Japan had its own tourist spots exalted by poets and artists – that’s how natural and insuppressible the desire for travel is.

        Shaming and banning it (and other harmless forms of joy) for some ideology, let alone some changes in statistical numbers most people don’t care about – that never does well. Ask communists.

        • Agree: AaronB
        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        He is talking about vacation bragging, you're talking about exploration and adventurism. Not the same thing.

        Paris Hilton posting pictures from Tahiti on her Instawhore account (or my brother constantly sending photos to the family from Nantucket or other status marking locations) staying in 5 star accommodations doesn't really compare to Marco Polo venturing to China.
      31. @Sean
        The article starts by discussing being overweight and them moves to discussing low birth rates as if there is an obvious connection, but I don't think the two hang together because ideal BMI women tend to have fewer children than fat ones. A study of hunter-gatherers, found the age at first birth was the same age as when average weight for adult females in that population was reached. The foetus is principally nourished by the mother's body fat ( critical to fertility). It's not even that unheathy compared to being slim. A huge study among Norwegians found those with BMI 18-20 had lower life expectancy than BMI 34-36.

        EVIDENCE from all over the world suggests that men strongly prefer women who have a lot of body fat (roughly 30 percent of their body weight) and whose body fat is distributed in a particular way, with very little in the waist but much more in the hips, buttocks and thighs, producing a small waist-hip ratio. Why have men evolved to prefer such high levels of fat--more than bears settling down to hibernate or whales swimming in frigid waters? [...] The rarest and most important brain fat is an omega-3 fat called DHA, and women systematically store the DHA they accumulate in their hips and thighs and then draw it down during pregnancy and nursing. Because omega-3 fats must come from the diet, they may often be in short supply. So, the "mysterious" male mating preference tracks women's ability to build big-brained kids. This kind of male preference would have been very beneficial in a species like humans where brain size was evolving rapidly.
         
        Certain genes that lead to success in education (genes for intelligence) are more and more subject to associative mating . It is not education as much as the high IQ that leads to education, and that is why it is a children of the upper middle class thing. The genes for high IQ are associated with autism and autism is associated with anorexia. Anorexics tend to avoid sex.

        Spengler.
        The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of "mutual understanding." It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady's who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne's who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine's who "belongs to herself" they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful.
         
        Associative mating is very strong for autistic traits. It is now generations since women become common in the technical educational institutions and workplaces ) and associative mating has produced a lot more highly intelligent (explanation for the Flynn effect), but anti earth mother type female children.

        So, the “mysterious” male mating preference tracks women’s ability to build big-brained kids.

        And don’t forget that those extra-wide hips are great for birthing those big-headed babies.

        • Replies: @Sean
        The hip measurement is actually taken across the greatest protrusion of the buttocks, so it is really a phat ass to belly lard ratio.
      32. Capitalism has a fear of and great difficulty with a steady state economy, it only wants to grow in the aggregate. It remains to be seen if it can raise the per capita income via increased productivity while in a steady state. Lessons from Japan might be applicable.

        We have eaten the seed corn, and if the population doesn’t grow there won’t be enough corn producers to pull everyone through. Capitalists are very much afraid of this scenario.

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        What do you mean by a 'steady state' economy?
        , @Mr. Rational

        We have eaten the seed corn, and if the population doesn’t grow there won’t be enough corn producers to pull everyone through.
         
        It's worse than that.  Our so-called capitalists are importing more corn-eaters, not corn-producers.  They are not actually capitalists, they are looters; they are loading up the country with debt, grabbing what they can and preparing to get out.
      33. @Sean
        The article starts by discussing being overweight and them moves to discussing low birth rates as if there is an obvious connection, but I don't think the two hang together because ideal BMI women tend to have fewer children than fat ones. A study of hunter-gatherers, found the age at first birth was the same age as when average weight for adult females in that population was reached. The foetus is principally nourished by the mother's body fat ( critical to fertility). It's not even that unheathy compared to being slim. A huge study among Norwegians found those with BMI 18-20 had lower life expectancy than BMI 34-36.

        EVIDENCE from all over the world suggests that men strongly prefer women who have a lot of body fat (roughly 30 percent of their body weight) and whose body fat is distributed in a particular way, with very little in the waist but much more in the hips, buttocks and thighs, producing a small waist-hip ratio. Why have men evolved to prefer such high levels of fat--more than bears settling down to hibernate or whales swimming in frigid waters? [...] The rarest and most important brain fat is an omega-3 fat called DHA, and women systematically store the DHA they accumulate in their hips and thighs and then draw it down during pregnancy and nursing. Because omega-3 fats must come from the diet, they may often be in short supply. So, the "mysterious" male mating preference tracks women's ability to build big-brained kids. This kind of male preference would have been very beneficial in a species like humans where brain size was evolving rapidly.
         
        Certain genes that lead to success in education (genes for intelligence) are more and more subject to associative mating . It is not education as much as the high IQ that leads to education, and that is why it is a children of the upper middle class thing. The genes for high IQ are associated with autism and autism is associated with anorexia. Anorexics tend to avoid sex.

        Spengler.
        The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of "mutual understanding." It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady's who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne's who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine's who "belongs to herself" they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful.
         
        Associative mating is very strong for autistic traits. It is now generations since women become common in the technical educational institutions and workplaces ) and associative mating has produced a lot more highly intelligent (explanation for the Flynn effect), but anti earth mother type female children.

        Yes, but we all know there’s a real difference between a “thick” woman and a “fat” woman.

        The West is full of fat women now.

      34. @TG
        Utterly missing the point.

        Decent people don't have more children than they can REASONABLY support. That is the rock on which all first-world nations are built.

        In the crash of the Great Depression, the American Fertility rate fell because Americans don't breed like rodents and generally don't have more children than they can support (not even blacks, really) - even if they would LIKE more children.

        That low fertility rate did not spell doom - only terrific strength, as when the economy rebounded, it was not wiped out by every more mouths to feed. The fertility rate went up in the 1950's, AFTER things got better. It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.

        The idea that Americans should breed like rodents and create massive poverty, so that the rich will no longer feel compelled to import ever more third-world refugees, is like commiting suicide to avoid the prospect of being murdered.

        Shut off the flood of people escaping the overpopulated hell of the modern third-world, and eventually wages and living conditions will rise, and yes, Americans will start having more children. But that would cost the rich profits, so we can't talk about that, only scream and holler that Americans are 'suicidial' in not having more children than they can support.

        That’s not what happened in Europe. Mass immigration was low in the 80s and 90s and they still had a plummeting fertility rate. Only in the 2010s has white fertility started to increase, as more refugees come in.

        • Replies: @Alden
        Living in small 2 bedroom high rise apartments with no storage space does tend to limit the number of children and parents that can be accommodated in each apartment.
      35. @Intelligent Dasein
        This is not different from what I've been saying. High fertility needs a community, an economy, and a culture that is organized around high fertility. Our culture is not. The individualists have taken it all over, so if you actually want to do those things anywhere else in the modern West, it really does take "heroic" effort.

        There are a lot of things that you could take for granted 60 years ago that no longer exist. The unofficial community parenting co-op, police who would keep the riffraff out, Sundays off to observe the Sabbath instead of working your pinche job, single wage earner families, a strong stigma against divorce, and so on.

        We could have this back if we wanted it, but we really don't and now the damage is irreparable. The consumerist-capitalist culture will have to completely collapse before we can get back to decency, and when we do it will be at a much lower level of social organization.

        The unofficial cooperative parenting is well and good among Whites, city or suburbs. Police in all White suburbs and sections of cities do keep the blacks out. Mostly they give out tickets. But when they see a car with 3 black thugs in it they follow the thugs around till the thugs leave.

        Things aren’t as bad as some people think they are.

      36. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
        That's not what happened in Europe. Mass immigration was low in the 80s and 90s and they still had a plummeting fertility rate. Only in the 2010s has white fertility started to increase, as more refugees come in.

        Living in small 2 bedroom high rise apartments with no storage space does tend to limit the number of children and parents that can be accommodated in each apartment.

      37. @Dumbo

        Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

         
        So full of themselves that even call their magazine "Reason". Libertarians are useless. I have a libertarian friend. Always cheering for open borders, liberation of drugs, and singing the beauties of corporate capitalism and globalist culture. At least leftists favor (in theory) some form of benefits for workers and social protection for those less well-off.

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.
         
        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don't need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat. Today we just have too much food and too little need to move by ourselves. Gyms are a poor substitute for more natural activities. People don't go to the gym for health reasons but to become more attractive for the other (or same) sex. However being overweight is usually a result of having bad discipline. Those people who are morbidly obese, I don't even understand how they can get to that size. Just stop eating so much sugar, idiot.

        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don’t need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat.

        There is also play. Which is a fundamental need of healthy animals and was present in all cultures. Look at 17th century rich people skating – they could afford to just sleep and eat but did what was fun! Also hunting, ball games, fencing and jousting (that was noblemen’s preparation for war, but they’re exciting activities per se), dances and carnivals.

        Today’s rich people physical exercise is basically having fun in the open air (yachting, horse riding, skiing, swimming in beautiful tropical sea…), and exercise for commoners is tedious moving of some machine parts in a stuffy room. No wonder most people don’t want it.

        • Agree: AaronB
        • Replies: @AaronB
        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere - just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it's done for the sake of some future goal.

        Play also isn't concerned with helping us survive, whereas most activities in the West are about improving our skills and ability to survive. But why survive, if not so you can play?

        There are philosophies that put play at the center of life. John Huizinga, the famous historian, wrote a book about the importance of play in culture.

        But for play to become important again, we would need to take life less seriously - seriousness comes from trying to survive.

        If survival is most important to you, you will be very serious - even gloomy - and your life will be centered around work, not play, and always some future goal or self-improvement that will help you survive.

        So for play to be central again in the West, we have to change our ideas about death. Right now we are terrified of it, so we can't play. We can only work. But some Eastern philosophies think that the world of separate things is kind of like an illusion, and that your ego is really not this separate thing that can die, but really just a part of everything, and everything cannot die, only change. So death is an illusion.

        Some Western thinkers thought along these lines as well. If we can start thinking just a little bit more like this again, we might appreciate play.
      38. On the fatness issue.

        Food consumption is a huge source of corporate profit. I read somewhere that if Americans ate 30% less, the economy would shrink.

        Edward Bernays, the great publicist, thought that in order to compete with the Soviets Americans needed to be encouraged to consume more of everything. He was the one who popularized the large American breakfast of eggs, bacon, toast, potatoes, etc. Before that, Americans ate breakfast like Europeans, a coffee and a small pastry.

        Now if I wanted to get Americans to eat more, I would try and convince them that eating moderately is too difficult. I would set the amount required for a healthy weight unreasonably low. This way, they would despair of being able to maintain a healthy weight. And indeed there is a widespread sense in America that being thin is “impossible” – only movie stars or other exceptional people can do it.

        Thus was born the 2,000 calorie daily recommended intake for men. To put that into perspective, a starvation diet study was done in the 50s – the daily calorie intake was 1,600. The Japanese, who are much smaller than us and very thin, average 2,800 calories per day.

        I stayed thin without ever counting calories, but recently I calculated my calorie intake during a period in my life when my abs were visible. It was 2,600 calories per day, with moderate activity levels. And I am an average size man, and had 10% body fat.

        The obesity epidemic dates to the 80s – it was at this time that recommendations about how much to eat went scientific, and you started hearing about calories. and traditional knowledge about portion size was discarded and we were not supposed to listen to hunger, but adhere to scientific guidelines instead.

        We obviously got it wrong – but interestingly, i think its because we recommend too little good, not too much. Whether this was deliberate I don’t know.

        • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @GodHelpUs
        For most people, the key to maintaining a healthy weight is avoiding polyunsaturated oils and added sugars. These two chemical products, not foods, were not eaten before the modern era. They are the root of the chronic inflammation that leads to the diseases that are common today but rare in the past.

        Polyunsaturated oils (soybean, corn, canola) cannot be refined without making them rancid. They must be chemically processed after they are extracted to make them not rancid. Cooking temperatures will make them rancid again, and accumulation of these rancid oils in the tissues leads to heart disease, depression and anxiety, asthma, Alzheimer's, etc.

        Sugar is addictive in high concentrations and toxic at high doses. It is also pro-inflammatory. Sugar consumption rose dramatically as the grain industry searched for new applications for its overproduction of corn in the 20th century. Most sugar in Western diets comes from corn and now contains glyphosate, which disrupts the gut microbiome.

        The weight of scientific evidence behind all these statements has been building for decades and is overwhelming at this point, yet the organizations that are trusted to provide the public with accurate nutritional advice have been resisting updating their guidelines to reflect this. The only way to find this information is to trust the word of bloggers and podcasters, or to read the studies yourself (they are all freely available).

        Why is this information suppressed? Scientists don't want to admit that their entire careers are based on falsehoods that have caused enormous harm, industry doesn't want the market for highly profitable processed foods to shrink or disappear, elites want the public to be fat, stupid, and lazy so that they are easier to control.
      39. “The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice.”

        It is rational,

        if you want to live for yourself
        simply are unable to manage it financially (yet history strongly suggests that poverty is no barrier to raising successful children)

        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is. I desired that headache. And the satisfaction that my life would be extended through a son – grrr. Even seriel killers have children — really depressing.

        Laugh. There are plenty of rational reasons to have children, family, community, national maintenance — what we are seeing is the downward pressure on commitment of self to a larger ethos of sacrifice (by choice) to the greater good of the same.

        • Replies: @jabrwok
        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is.

        Speak it brother! While in theory I could still father children, at my age (50) and economic level (statistical mean) and social activity level (nil), the odds of me finding an appealing young woman who wants to bear my children are pretty much non-existent, and children represent the only kind of immortality to which we can *know* we have access: bloodline immortality.

        Afterlives are all well and good if real, but there's really no way to know short of dying, and if you're wrong you'll never know at all. Not terribly encouraging or motivating, that. As things stand now, my investment in the future ends when I die. What happens after that doesn't concern me. A people which hopes to survive can't afford for that perspective to become common.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        It doesn't mean your life is a failure. It has trouble with the categorical imperative, but a healthy civilization doesn't need everybody breeding. It does need propagating to be the celebrated, expected norm, though.
      40. Luckily, obese women these days can just squeeze themselves into form-fitting tights to, you know, hide the fat, which is what you want to do for a shopping trip to Wally World.

        It helps also to conceal the heaving mounds of flabby flesh if you have some sparkly nails and a few tattoos. It may work. Some guys are truly desperate…

        “I’d F*** a rockpile if I thought there was a snake in it.”

        — Traditional American Horny Toad’s response¹

        Well, it wasn’t until the introduction of high fructose corn syrup and especially artificial sweeteners like Aspartame that the obesity epidemic really got into high gear.

        Oh, my aching eyes.

        Well, at least when I was a young man, most American women were slender, looked great, and dressed well to attract guys, and eventually get married, “settle down,” and have babies. It was a simple equation that had worked pretty well over the centuries until scowling feminists like the repulsive American Betty Friedan convinced women to trash all that, and go for something else. We’re reaping the obese harvest of that still today, because it’s all good, even it you’re a pig.

        At least you’ve escaped all those chauvinistic males!

        Psst: now that I’m getting up there in years, and after a shopping trip to WW, I try to recover with a parade of slender young ladies who arrive at my bachelor pad to help with the dusting, and then stick around for refreshments, and to model for some life drawing.² ³

        It may be true that some things just can’t be unseen, but, after a shopping trip to WW, it’s certainly worth a try.

        ¹ Response to the question “You’d F*** her?”

        ² As Hokusai put it, “Learning to draw never ends.”

        ³ Italicized items with”Psst” are usually fanciful and strictly for comic effect.

        • Replies: @Alden
        So stay away from Walmart.
      41. @Dumbo
        Why? Don't you think usury is bad?

        “Usury,” in the way it used by people who bellyache about it, is just a synonym for “credit.” And no, credit isn’t economically deleterious.

      42. @Toronto Russian

        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don’t need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat.
         
        There is also play. Which is a fundamental need of healthy animals and was present in all cultures. Look at 17th century rich people skating - they could afford to just sleep and eat but did what was fun! Also hunting, ball games, fencing and jousting (that was noblemen's preparation for war, but they're exciting activities per se), dances and carnivals.

        https://i.redd.it/eo3k62uk1g211.jpg

        Today's rich people physical exercise is basically having fun in the open air (yachting, horse riding, skiing, swimming in beautiful tropical sea...), and exercise for commoners is tedious moving of some machine parts in a stuffy room. No wonder most people don't want it.

        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere – just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it’s done for the sake of some future goal.

        Play also isn’t concerned with helping us survive, whereas most activities in the West are about improving our skills and ability to survive. But why survive, if not so you can play?

        There are philosophies that put play at the center of life. John Huizinga, the famous historian, wrote a book about the importance of play in culture.

        But for play to become important again, we would need to take life less seriously – seriousness comes from trying to survive.

        If survival is most important to you, you will be very serious – even gloomy – and your life will be centered around work, not play, and always some future goal or self-improvement that will help you survive.

        So for play to be central again in the West, we have to change our ideas about death. Right now we are terrified of it, so we can’t play. We can only work. But some Eastern philosophies think that the world of separate things is kind of like an illusion, and that your ego is really not this separate thing that can die, but really just a part of everything, and everything cannot die, only change. So death is an illusion.

        Some Western thinkers thought along these lines as well. If we can start thinking just a little bit more like this again, we might appreciate play.

        • Replies: @silviosilver

        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere – just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it’s done for the sake of some future goal.
         
        So play is unknown to westerners?

        (I guess at least we don't have to worry that we're playing too many video games. No chance of that, according to Aaron.)
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Kids are a great, visceral reminder of the importance of--and joy that comes from--play.
        , @Lost american
        Most of us who are around 70 years of age and grew up on the streets of low income areas in cities spent our youth just playing stick ball, stoop ball, touch football, and walking a mile or more to ball fields to play hardball and also walking to playgrounds to play hours of basketball. We played soldier in lots that were full of dirt and trees. We were peddling our bicycles near every day. These were the bikes that only had one speed so you had to put muscle into your peddling.
        We walked everywhere and for real adventure we would get on the subway going to New York City and then in Manhattan walk many miles to look at all the stores. We were always moving about. All in my crowd were thin. I think those days are gone because when I go back to visit people who live in suburbs and even city neighborhoods I see few kids if any out on the streets playing.
        I've noticed too that in homes and in offices when papers are on the floor that most of the time no one bends over to pick them up.
      43. ““Usury,” in the way it used by people who bellyache about it, is just a synonym for “credit.” And no, credit isn’t economically deleterious.”

        No. “usury” is the practice of extorting unreasonable interest rates or engaging on practices that hide additional fees or similar tactics to obtain financial or other benefit from the principle of paying on time. Usury can be both legal and illegal practice, in my view.

        The process of bailing out those who engaged in fraudulent lending practices and not ensuring borrowers and buyers were also protected, market assessment, etc. Illegal — the local loan shark point system.

      44. @iffen
        Capitalism has a fear of and great difficulty with a steady state economy, it only wants to grow in the aggregate. It remains to be seen if it can raise the per capita income via increased productivity while in a steady state. Lessons from Japan might be applicable.

        We have eaten the seed corn, and if the population doesn't grow there won't be enough corn producers to pull everyone through. Capitalists are very much afraid of this scenario.

        What do you mean by a ‘steady state’ economy?

        • Replies: @iffen
        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn't use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.
      45. @neutral
        How about you point out a single white nationalist that claims to love obese women?

        Just put him on ignore. Pure troll.

      46. @AaronB
        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere - just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it's done for the sake of some future goal.

        Play also isn't concerned with helping us survive, whereas most activities in the West are about improving our skills and ability to survive. But why survive, if not so you can play?

        There are philosophies that put play at the center of life. John Huizinga, the famous historian, wrote a book about the importance of play in culture.

        But for play to become important again, we would need to take life less seriously - seriousness comes from trying to survive.

        If survival is most important to you, you will be very serious - even gloomy - and your life will be centered around work, not play, and always some future goal or self-improvement that will help you survive.

        So for play to be central again in the West, we have to change our ideas about death. Right now we are terrified of it, so we can't play. We can only work. But some Eastern philosophies think that the world of separate things is kind of like an illusion, and that your ego is really not this separate thing that can die, but really just a part of everything, and everything cannot die, only change. So death is an illusion.

        Some Western thinkers thought along these lines as well. If we can start thinking just a little bit more like this again, we might appreciate play.

        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere – just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it’s done for the sake of some future goal.

        So play is unknown to westerners?

        (I guess at least we don’t have to worry that we’re playing too many video games. No chance of that, according to Aaron.)

        • Replies: @AaronB
        Play is not considered to have real value in the West. Obviously we know about play, but it is supposed to be something marginal and unimportant. We disparage play. Mostly, life is supposed to be about the grim task of survival, and we are terrified of death.

        It didn't always used to be this way in the West - the Middle Ages were much more playful - and it isn't this way in other cultures.

        I think it comes down to assumptions about the nature of life. If you think death is real - which literally no culture before the modern West did - then you will avoid play and spend your time devising ways to avoid it. If you think the world is real, you will take it seriously.

        I would suggest that the belief in the reality of death made life in the West too serious and heavy - and gloomy. And part of the revolt against Western civilization is a revolt against taking life too seriously.

        It may sound absolutely insane to us Westerners, but the entire civilization of the Far East was based on seeing reality as an illusion and a dream, and thus, as not "serious" in the Western sense, and more a field for play. An entire civilization was built on these ideas!

        This is bound to seem absolutely bonkers to us modern Westerners. We are apt to think that high civilization is the result of taking the world very seriously indeed. But its worth remembering that the civilization the West created was also based on not taking this earthly world as very important at all and as not very real - Heaven was supposed to be the true reality.
      47. @Toronto Russian

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs
         
        What are you talking about? Travel is one of the most pure and ancient forms of experiencing the joy of life.

        The Road goes ever on and on
        Down from the door where it began.
        Now far ahead the Road has gone,
        And I must follow, if I can,
        Pursuing it with eager feet,
        Until it joins some larger way
        Where many paths and errands meet.
        And whither then? I cannot say.
        - J.R.R. Tolkien
         
        People only became sedentary agriculturalists about ten thousand years ago, and were nomads for much much longer. How would they spread across the Earth up to Australia and the tip of South America, if they didn't feel the pull to explore new places? Of course hunger also made them move, but if they really didn't want to move they could limit their reproduction (hunter-gatherer tribes know infanticide and contraception by prolonged breastfeeding) and live in stasis. Even in the Middle Ages, at the height of "traditional" living there were paths of pilgrimage all over Europe, and people went there not only to pray but to enjoy themselves. The super-agrarian, super-sedentary, living under a government that limited people's movement very strictly, Edo Japan had its own tourist spots exalted by poets and artists - that's how natural and insuppressible the desire for travel is.

        Shaming and banning it (and other harmless forms of joy) for some ideology, let alone some changes in statistical numbers most people don't care about - that never does well. Ask communists.

        He is talking about vacation bragging, you’re talking about exploration and adventurism. Not the same thing.

        Paris Hilton posting pictures from Tahiti on her Instawhore account (or my brother constantly sending photos to the family from Nantucket or other status marking locations) staying in 5 star accommodations doesn’t really compare to Marco Polo venturing to China.

      48. @silviosilver
        Outstanding poetry. Economic kookery.

        1. Capable young people come out of college saddled with debt.

        2. Less capable young people go into labor market in which wages have been essentially stagnant for 50 years (thank you for the immigrants).

        3. Fed props up asset bubbles in the stock market and real estate market, while the government bails out the swindlers.

        4. Young people, even with means, cannot afford to buy housing or otherwise engage in the “American Dream” lifestyle that produces offspring.

        5. Not to mention “feminism”, which was probably only initially intended to seduce nubile females into the clutches of lesbian crones, has the consequences driving men into either being gay or ordering Asian mail order brides, not to mention turning the women who should be having children into sexless worker drones climbing a meaningless corporate hierarchy, or prostituting themselves to investment bankers to pay off college debt. Not to mention helping to crater wages in the labor market.

        Manipulate the labor markets to freeze wages, prop up aggregate demand with private lending (that can’t get paid back because of wage stall), then bail out the banks (shifting bad loans from private liability to public liability), and reduce the upcoming generation to debt-peonage through student loans, prop up asset bubbles, throw in some “austerity”, and then rinse and repeat.

        Christen “capital gains” off government-induced asset bubbles as “economic growth” while aggregate production of goods and serves collapse, and no man can buy a house of good stone, and the young women are left selling their bodies to decrepit financiers to work their way out of debt -peonage.

        • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, Hail
        • Replies: @Hail
        Thank God we had MAGA come along to reverse each and every one of those trends.
        .

        Oh,

        What's that you say?

        No real progress on reversing any of them, after three years?
        .

        Damn.

        ________

        Another knockout Tucker Carlson monologue, Jan. 20, 2020:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eR1Pm7ANLw

        "The candidate who makes it easier for 30 year olds to get married & have kids will win the election, and will deserve to win. Remember that."
         
      49. @MikeatMikedotMike
        I had planned to reply to this comment a few days ago, but forgot.

        "Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification."

        First, China isn't a good example because they had a state mandated 1 child policy for 35 years. While it was likely impossible to enforce comprehensively, that by itself was enough to drive down total fertility. Perhaps I'm wrong but Japan seems to have come under quite a bit of Western influence since WWII, and they have quite a pornography following and also practice abortion (although neither to the extent of the US)

        Secondly, low fertility in other parts of the world does not disprove subversive influences in the West. I know little about Iran other than I don't want to go to war with them, but their low fertility doesn't somehow disprove the subversive efforts in the West.

        "The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever."

        Again, the second sentence doesn't prove the first, or even relate to it at all. Off the point, but I am curious to read about how sexualized imagery is supposed to assist in preventing obesity, seeing as most of us here are in agreement that ubiquitous sexual imagery has almost nothing but a negative effect upon people who consume it.

        To AE:

        "Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. "

        With instant access to information via the internet, it has never been easier to optimize one's life in all sorts of ways. Specific to fitness, for most people an hour of exercise doesn't offset the ill effects of remaining sedentary for 8-12 hours a day. Most of the fitness industry is comprised of "get fit quick" fads and supplement scams. We have also been lied to about what is to be considered correct nutrition via the ridiculous "food pyramid," the vilification of animal fats, and steered into a detrimental dependency upon carbohydrate based foods, which we are finally coming to realize are the cause of a great many serious health problems. I guess your point was to provide an example of how subversive efforts are overstated? 100 years ago (((clever))) marketers were able to convince people that smoking was healthy in general and enhanced femininity for women specifically. Oops!

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.

        I was also going to reply to that statement by AE. Since it is something of an indirect reply to your comment as well I will do it here.

        AE, I think you are omitting an important causal factor (actually a cluster of them, but closely related). One aspect is MikeatMikedotMike’s point about nutrition misinformation from the sources which are supposed to be impartial and/or trying to help us. That also translates into issues with institutional diets (e.g. school lunches). But more broadly:

        It requires much more conscious effort now to eat a healthy diet than it did in the past. Availability of everything has improved, but the biggest “improvement” is in the plethora of processed food available. Both in supermarkets and in “restaurants” (scare quotes because I mostly mean fast food here, though not exclusively).

        Even with the best intentions it can be difficult to avoid all of this. In particular, when social pressure is involved.

        Then add to that all of the work the processed food manufacturers do on palatability (and presumably on things that make people eat MORE of their product, e.g. insulin spikes/crashes will do that). I have been amazed by how bad my food cravings can be in certain situations.

        One thing I think worth considering is how the default food choices typically presented constitute an “anti-Nudge” as far as good health is concerned.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

        There is a reason we have ballooned in the last fifty years. Obviously our genes have not changed that much. I don’t think human psychology has changed that much either (though I do think there are some vicious cycles here which food marketers exploit to our detriment).

        What has really changed is the environment we are saturated in. The good news is as you said–it has never been easier to achieve peak physical condition. The bad news is it is harder (IMHO, meaning you have to actively work at it) to achieve good physical condition now than it was fifty years ago because our default choices are worse. In particular, our food and lack of intrinsic day to day physical activity.

        In brief, both genes and psychology matter, but it is our environment which is making it so easy to become obese. And a big part of human psychology over all of time is many people have difficulty taking anything but the easy path.

        • Thanks: MikeatMikedotMike
        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Agree with everything here. I didn't mean to imply that our psychology has changed significantly in 100 years. If our great grandparents had the same food choices and availability we do now, they'd have been obese, too. My point was that we can't collectively overcome that psychology very easily. Propaganda can't seem to do it for more than a small number of people who are exceptionally fit today.
        , @Twinkie

        Availability
         
        In the past, scarcity put constraints on the low IQ, high impulsivity, low time horizon people from gorging and the necessity of physical labor prevented immobility. So only the rich (“fat cats”) became obese.

        You are right that today’s world is one of abundance. The constraints of scarcity and the necessity of physical labor are gone. The only positive adaptive mechanism or filter as such today are high IQ, low impulsivity, high time horizon, etc.

        I don’t know which has been worse for the lower classes, the gluttonous plenty and lack of worthwhile labor of today or the Malthusian near-starvation and physical toil of yesterday. I have my own preference Under this scenario, but I am okay with pain. But even I would crumble at seeing my little ones starve.
      50. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they're the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you're poorer.

        I was lucky - my part of the country has better local food options. If you're in Appalachia somewhere, though, you're stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you’re poorer.

        This!

        If you’re in Appalachia somewhere, though, you’re stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        It depends. Some rural areas are good places to find things like high quality milk and meat as well as fruits and vegetables either at farmstands or farmers markets. Sometimes at surprisingly reasonable prices. I’d say your part of Pennsylvania is a good example of that.

        But of course it is more work to seek out those sources than to just drive over to Wally World.

        • Replies: @Alden
        In California the farm stands are as expensive as the more expensive supermarkets. Foods the same as they sell to the supermarkets for long term storage same with the farmers markets in the cities.

        I wonder how many of the comments are from people who actually shop and cook for families.
      51. Obesity epidemic has everything to do with female labor market participation and the decline of working class marriages and families eating home cooked meals around the dinner table. Your working class household is now a female head-of-household working three part-time jobs to support one to three children, who relies on fast food or prepared meals to feed the household. She has neither the time nor the means to afford a gym. Its the upper-middle class, married, households that eat organic and have the fitness trainer.

        The other part of it is soft-drink companies pushing soda on children in schools, etc. Restrictions on soft drinks have reversed obesity rates in children to some extent.

        • Replies: @Alden
        I doubt poor people eat fast food all the time. I see those KFC chicken dinner for 4 ads all the time. $20.99 plus tax, $22.00. The meat is legs and thighs with bone and skin. 8 ounces mashed potatoes 8 ounces coleslaw 2 corn cobs cut in half 4 biscuits.

        5 people for dinner tonight, 2 teens, 3 adults.

        I’ve got a package of 6 large boneless skinless chicken breasts thawing right now. All meat, no waste$7.00. Mashed potatoes will come from a 10 pound bag, the only size she buys. $5.00 for a 10 pound bag russets. 5 russets from that bag maybe $1.50. Half a cabbage, 2 grated carrots couple blobs of mayonnaise. $1.50. Can of corn $2.00.

        So I’m feeding 5 a chicken dinner for $12.00 instead of 4 for $22.00. 4 biscuits would cost about 75 cents to make 1 cup of flour 1/2 tsp baking powder blob of margarine , water.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that children can fix snacks at age 7 and cook about age 10-12. Nothing to prevent the kids from peeling and cutting up potatoes making salad and getting dinner going when they come home from school is there?

        People who have teens tell me those cooking shows inspire the kids to cook dinner. They come from school hungry fix a snack and turn on the TV. A cooking show comes on. They realize they’ve got the ingredients and start cooking.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that women often make a big pot of spaghetti sauce chili pot roast curry mashed potatoes rice max&cheese enough for 3 meals and all it needs is heating up.

        Also depends on the age of the kids. If all 3 are under 7 they’d eat half a chicken breast, a generous tablespoon of potatoes coleslaw and corn. So subtract $3.50 for the chicken $2.50 for the potatoes corn and coleslaw,

        If the kids were 11 and older they’d eat the whole meal homemade for $12.00 instead of $22.00

        Many poor single moms with 3 kids are on complete welfare don’t work and have plenty of time to cook. Even if they work, they get food stamps. Food stamps can’t be spent on prepared food. The cash part of the welfare can be spent on restaurant food but they need the cash for utilities rent etc.

        You can feed 4 people bacon eggs and toast every day for a week for the cost of 4 egg Mac muffins breakfasts for one day.
      52. @silviosilver

        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere – just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it’s done for the sake of some future goal.
         
        So play is unknown to westerners?

        (I guess at least we don't have to worry that we're playing too many video games. No chance of that, according to Aaron.)

        Play is not considered to have real value in the West. Obviously we know about play, but it is supposed to be something marginal and unimportant. We disparage play. Mostly, life is supposed to be about the grim task of survival, and we are terrified of death.

        It didn’t always used to be this way in the West – the Middle Ages were much more playful – and it isn’t this way in other cultures.

        I think it comes down to assumptions about the nature of life. If you think death is real – which literally no culture before the modern West did – then you will avoid play and spend your time devising ways to avoid it. If you think the world is real, you will take it seriously.

        I would suggest that the belief in the reality of death made life in the West too serious and heavy – and gloomy. And part of the revolt against Western civilization is a revolt against taking life too seriously.

        It may sound absolutely insane to us Westerners, but the entire civilization of the Far East was based on seeing reality as an illusion and a dream, and thus, as not “serious” in the Western sense, and more a field for play. An entire civilization was built on these ideas!

        This is bound to seem absolutely bonkers to us modern Westerners. We are apt to think that high civilization is the result of taking the world very seriously indeed. But its worth remembering that the civilization the West created was also based on not taking this earthly world as very important at all and as not very real – Heaven was supposed to be the true reality.

      53. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they're the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you're poorer.

        I was lucky - my part of the country has better local food options. If you're in Appalachia somewhere, though, you're stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I’d say this ‘food desert’ nonsense is nonsense. You don’t need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don’t notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options

        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) “local food options” means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        Don't forget Harold's fried chicken.
        , @Mark G.
        Instead of food deserts causing unhealthy eating it's more the exact opposite. Some local liberal do-gooder types here in Indianapolis got a government grant to open a store selling healthy food in the worst inner city ghetto. It had to close after a couple years because they didn't make enough to pay their employees.

        People in the neighborhood wanted junk food and just wouldn't buy healthy food. The store would try to sell something like organic apples. The apples would sit there and rot. The locals didn't care about apples and especially didn't care about organic apples.

        The store could have switched to selling junk food that people there wanted but stores that do that in inner city ghettos have high levels of theft and also have to pay for increased security just to clamp down on bad behavior in the store. They lose money doing that and can't make a profit. The ghetto health food store had no stealing because no one wanted what they were selling and no in store bad customer behavior since they had no customers. I was told by one of the employees they did have a problem, though, with bodies in the parking lot when junkies overdosed and died or people were murdered and their bodies were dumped there.
        , @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Look, friend, in America we subsidize grain and effectively penalize raw vegetables and fruits. That is why we are fat.

        Of course you aren't "forced" to eat the prepared foods - but the prepared foods are cheaper, and easier - and those are both big considerations for a wage slave (or a welfare bum)

        Additionally, I might add as an aside that the quality of apples, among other things, at Wal-Mart is terrible compared to the fresh eastern fruit I am able to otherwise grow or acquire. Why? Because it turns out that there are real costs involved with eating "fresh" (cold storage) Chilean or eastern Washington apples out of season instead of, say, making your own apple sauce from seconds/dropped apples in the fall when they're available. But the food system has dumbed people down, and made them less self-reliant. Hence less homemade apple sauce, and the like.

        Read Wendell Berry: consumerist agribusiness is a disaster.
        , @Johann Ricke

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Precisely. I know of any number of things you can do with cabbage, ranging from cole slaw, sauerkraut, kimchi, stir fries, stuffed cabbage to curry. And it's all on Youtube. People who complain about food deserts aren't using the principal resources available to them - the internet (at the library if they can't afford the cheapo home internet service available for $9.95 a month to indigents https://www.internetessentials.com/ ) and their noggins.
      54. Nothing kills fertility like the two income “family.”

        • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
        • Replies: @Alden
        So tell us, how many children do you have?
      55. It’s genetics. Obesity has nothing to do with it. Anatoly Karlin explained it in his age of industrial malthusianism series

      56. I’m not all that concerned about Africa India etc. but I am concerned about the USA my country. We’ve expanded by about a third in the last 50 years, from 200 to 300 million and that’s just the people who bother to respond to the census. The one third increase in 50 years is mostly due to non White immigrants.

        Most of the immigrants are in the big cities. This made rents and housing rise traffic worsen vast expansion of schools hospitals retail and other city services to accommodate the immigrants. The immigrants are just a tool of the capitalists to drive down wages and reduce job applicants to the status of beggars.

        Given the problems of an ever increasing USA population, I can’t understand why the concern about fertility which leads to higher housing costs higher government expense for roads buses schools hospitals etc and most of all, lower wages for everybody.

        Even if every immigrant were a fine upstanding person able to support themselves , it’s still a disaster.

        But face the facts population enthusiasts, immigrants have a very high rate of not just welfare dependency but use all sorts of government subsidies to support their small businesses. These are subsidies denied to White American small businesses b cause of racial discrimination.

        If White conservative men want White women to have White children, the first step is to remove affirmative action discrimination against Whites.

        The White parents need decent paying jobs to support the children. In 20 years the children will need jobs to support themselves.

        Affirmative action discrimination keeps Whites out of the job market and reduces us to poverty.

        And big families need bigger houses than 2 bedrooms and a combo living room kitchen; 3 rooms.

      57. @silviosilver
        What do you mean by a 'steady state' economy?

        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn’t use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        If the size of the aggregate economy is 'fixed', then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        If the population is stable and the number of workers and working hours remain unchanged, then increased productivity must increase the size of the aggregate economy. Eg 1000 workers, working 1000 hours and producing at $100/hr = $100 million. If productivity increases to $110/hour, then the economy will grow to $110 million.

        Achieving a 'steady state' seems simple enough: no need to grow, we're rich enough as it is, we'll just reproduce what we produced last year, every year from here on out. But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.
        , @dfordoom

        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn’t use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.
         
        Thee's no reason at all why that couldn't be done. Except that capitalism (despite propaganda to the contrary) is not highly efficient. Most large corporations are as lazy and inefficient and incompetent as most bureaucracies. They don't want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.

        It's another reason why free markets are not as great an idea as their proponents would like you to believe.
      58. Anonymous[259] • Disclaimer says:
        @Sean
        The article starts by discussing being overweight and them moves to discussing low birth rates as if there is an obvious connection, but I don't think the two hang together because ideal BMI women tend to have fewer children than fat ones. A study of hunter-gatherers, found the age at first birth was the same age as when average weight for adult females in that population was reached. The foetus is principally nourished by the mother's body fat ( critical to fertility). It's not even that unheathy compared to being slim. A huge study among Norwegians found those with BMI 18-20 had lower life expectancy than BMI 34-36.

        EVIDENCE from all over the world suggests that men strongly prefer women who have a lot of body fat (roughly 30 percent of their body weight) and whose body fat is distributed in a particular way, with very little in the waist but much more in the hips, buttocks and thighs, producing a small waist-hip ratio. Why have men evolved to prefer such high levels of fat--more than bears settling down to hibernate or whales swimming in frigid waters? [...] The rarest and most important brain fat is an omega-3 fat called DHA, and women systematically store the DHA they accumulate in their hips and thighs and then draw it down during pregnancy and nursing. Because omega-3 fats must come from the diet, they may often be in short supply. So, the "mysterious" male mating preference tracks women's ability to build big-brained kids. This kind of male preference would have been very beneficial in a species like humans where brain size was evolving rapidly.
         
        Certain genes that lead to success in education (genes for intelligence) are more and more subject to associative mating . It is not education as much as the high IQ that leads to education, and that is why it is a children of the upper middle class thing. The genes for high IQ are associated with autism and autism is associated with anorexia. Anorexics tend to avoid sex.

        Spengler.
        The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of "mutual understanding." It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady's who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne's who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine's who "belongs to herself" they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful.
         
        Associative mating is very strong for autistic traits. It is now generations since women become common in the technical educational institutions and workplaces ) and associative mating has produced a lot more highly intelligent (explanation for the Flynn effect), but anti earth mother type female children.

        Is it simply intelligence and an intellectual disposition, or material comfort and ensuing decadence?

        Even the most non intellectual, ditzy, airhead types, the trophy wives, or the lucky low class “peasant” girl who manages to land a high status wealthy man, once they get married to a wealthy man and have access to his resources, seem to shirk their motherly role and turn to all kinds of hired help to raise and assist in raising their kids. Even the most motherly among them appear not to replicate the peasant mother role under circumstances of material comfort and great resources, but seek diversions while using hired help and money to fulfill the motherly duties. These might not be intellectual diversions, but rather more feminine or motherly like diversions, but they are diversions all the same.

      59. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they're the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you're poorer.

        I was lucky - my part of the country has better local food options. If you're in Appalachia somewhere, though, you're stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        Walmart and Grocery Outlet sell a full range of fruits and vegetables. And they’re all over the country. In California there’s the 99 cent stores. They don’t sell fresh meat, just bacon baloney etc. just staples canned and frozen food and produce.

        The one in my neighborhood has the best produce section I’ve ever seen. Better than Whole Foods Bristol farms and the rest of the expensive stores.

        Even the tomatoes are delicious. My mom had a big vegetable garden but I was never able to due to the fog and cold of the SF Bay Area. So I stopped eating rubber tomatoes. I don’t know where 99 cent store gets it’s tomatoes wherever it is they are real tomatoes.

        Trader Joe’s another chain that’s cheaper than supermarkets with a full range of fruits and vegetables. My local kosher market is very expensive as kosher markets are. But it always has huge bins out front with potatoes onions oranges apples pears watermelon and other seasonal melons for like 39 cents a pound.

        The other thing to remember is that seasonal produce is very cheap. Even in this era where produce comes from all over the world. Strawberry season 2 pound baskets for $1.00. All seasonal produce is cheap. Lettuce is always more expensive in winter. So women serve coleslaw with lots of grated carrots. Must be like 75 cents for salad for a family of 4 – 6. Even asparagus is cheap when in season.

      60. @iffen
        Capitalism has a fear of and great difficulty with a steady state economy, it only wants to grow in the aggregate. It remains to be seen if it can raise the per capita income via increased productivity while in a steady state. Lessons from Japan might be applicable.

        We have eaten the seed corn, and if the population doesn't grow there won't be enough corn producers to pull everyone through. Capitalists are very much afraid of this scenario.

        We have eaten the seed corn, and if the population doesn’t grow there won’t be enough corn producers to pull everyone through.

        It’s worse than that.  Our so-called capitalists are importing more corn-eaters, not corn-producers.  They are not actually capitalists, they are looters; they are loading up the country with debt, grabbing what they can and preparing to get out.

      61. @Anonymousse

        career, travel, and lifestyle
         
        “Career” is the name for what healthy people do to earn money.

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker - the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        “Lifestyle” is generally just a marketing euphemism for products and brands that deracinated people identify with...

        So REALLY we’re being encouraged to give away our patrimony for what amounts to “consumption, consumption, and consumption.”

        Always ennobling stuff from our libertarian friends. Accidentally insightful though.

        Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        Travel is wonderful, but like so many wonderful things, it’s only wonderful for so long. After awhile, it’s just more of the same, even when you go someplace new. I scratched that itch when I was young, and have never had any desire to travel much since then.

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
        Cheap commercial air transport for the masses has made travel very much less of a mark of distinction than it used to be. There is no truly exotic spot anymore, because every last forelorn lump of rock has already been visit by an uncomprehending mob of tourists and the global culture has spread itself throughout the world.

        Like everything else these days, travel has had all the depth taken out of it. Just like the age of endless stock market gains and internet millionaires has resulted in a slew of parvenues who have money but no class or taste, so also are there now well-travelled individuals who have not thereby gained any sophistication or insight, which used to be regarded as the very point of travel and which lent it its high-status tinctures to begin with.

        What I would not give for a world in which wealth and class were more closely correlated and where learning and sophistication had not been bowdlerized by mass market consumption.
        , @silviosilver
        Very true. After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves: feeling lost among a people you don't understand; weirdass locals whose ways irritate you but you bite your tongue cos it's not your country; answering the same boring questions about where you're from etc; excitedly seeing the sights, followed quickly by the realization that it's not all that special.

        The only kind of international travel I'd be interested in now is if I lived in Europe, doing a car trip for a few days, or better yet in an RV. Those trips are quick, cheap, and fun (at least if you enjoy driving, as I do). I'm actually thinking of retiring youngish (50-55) and doing just that. That's still quite a few years away, so whether it's feasible depends on how I do financially till then. But it's an enticing prospect.
      62. @Dutch Boy
        Nothing kills fertility like the two income "family."

        So tell us, how many children do you have?

      63. @Lars Porsena
        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I'd say this 'food desert' nonsense is nonsense. You don't need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don't notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options
         
        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) "local food options" means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.

        Don’t forget Harold’s fried chicken.

      64. I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        But then, no I’m not really that puzzled. Any excuse to oppress and limit women will do. Men’s freedoms are absolute. Women’s rights are negotiable.

        • Replies: @Alden
        I’m puzzled about how many of the men punditing and pontificating about how women don’t cook and feed their families on nothing but fast food have ever food shopped and cooked a meal for a family.

        Conservatives are a strange group. Totally ignore black on White crime that’s aided and abetted by government and liberal media. Totally ignore affirmative action discrimination for every job from Dr to dishwasher, But obsess about how women should have more children and criticize cooking and meals.

        You can tell these men don’t food shop and cook because they seem to think cooking is a complicated time consuming difficult process
        , @Twinkie

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        I agree with this conclusion. However, no one serious advocates denying women education, except fringe commenters on fringe blogs. I doubt they add up to 5% of the male population, I’d even that. So you can stop punching (rhetorically) imaginary evil males like the leftists who are always on about white supremacists (while getting mugged by black criminals in real life).
        , @Hail

        a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        From reading your comments on this website, I assume you are arguing here from the perspective of someone who identifies the need to stabilize the birthrate while promoting eugenic fertility and/or reducing dysgenic fertility.

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around? Or is there something else?

        What is your solution?
        , @dfordoom

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        Are you actually advocating banning birth control? Wouldn't banning birth control be an infringement of women's rights? It would mean forcing women to have children against their will. I can't see that ending well, for anybody.

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.

        It's also possible that it's not just the case that highly educated women want fewer children. It may be that highly educated men want fewer children as well. Maybe it's not education for women that causes birth rates to plummet, but too much education in general.
      65. @Rosie

        Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs
         
        Travel is wonderful, but like so many wonderful things, it's only wonderful for so long. After awhile, it's just more of the same, even when you go someplace new. I scratched that itch when I was young, and have never had any desire to travel much since then.

        Cheap commercial air transport for the masses has made travel very much less of a mark of distinction than it used to be. There is no truly exotic spot anymore, because every last forelorn lump of rock has already been visit by an uncomprehending mob of tourists and the global culture has spread itself throughout the world.

        Like everything else these days, travel has had all the depth taken out of it. Just like the age of endless stock market gains and internet millionaires has resulted in a slew of parvenues who have money but no class or taste, so also are there now well-travelled individuals who have not thereby gained any sophistication or insight, which used to be regarded as the very point of travel and which lent it its high-status tinctures to begin with.

        What I would not give for a world in which wealth and class were more closely correlated and where learning and sophistication had not been bowdlerized by mass market consumption.

        • Replies: @Twinkie
        Traveling for instant novelty and photo-ops might have become cheap, but the old upperclass style tours of a region (which often took weeks and months) are still costly.

        I always tell people that I hate traveling, but enjoy living in other countries and studying their peoples, histories, and cultures... and killing them. That always shuts down the inane “When I went to India... “ or “When I was in Africa for a week-long medical mission...” type of conversations.
      66. @Dumbo
        That doesn't seem much different than legalized prostitution. How much does prostitution affect white fertility in the West? Not much, I would think.

        Now educating women, that certainly reduces fertility, and Persian women are on average more educated (smarter?) than Arab ones.

        It's actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don't know.

        It’s actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don’t know

        .

        How about instead of “educating” them that they are just as good as men in every way, and should be competing with them, we educate them about themselves (women are better at some things, men are better at others), and that they have a limited window to have children.

        …And then, support them in their second career, if the first one they choose is to be a mother.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Medvedev
        You're making too much sense.
        Today women are brainwashed to believe that they're superior and better in every way. There is not a single trait, where men are better. Proof:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpX6IQ3GY4

        There are 1.5 females getting higher education for every male. Most get good-for-nothing degrees that don't produce or generate anything of value, but are involved in redistribution of wealth created by productive women and men. This includes all kinds of social studies, women's studies, hate-whitey studies, diversity champions (normal high school today can have staff of 10-20 totally involved in championing diversity) and affirmative action/quotas to push women into STEM.

        Add to this, that women on subconscious level want someone who is at least equal to them in social status and you'll understand why so many women cannot find 'worthy' husband, enjoy life and have 2.58 children on average that they want.
      67. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they're the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you're poorer.

        I was lucky - my part of the country has better local food options. If you're in Appalachia somewhere, though, you're stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        No.

        You have to have self-awareness, self-respect, and discipline.

      68. @TG
        Utterly missing the point.

        Decent people don't have more children than they can REASONABLY support. That is the rock on which all first-world nations are built.

        In the crash of the Great Depression, the American Fertility rate fell because Americans don't breed like rodents and generally don't have more children than they can support (not even blacks, really) - even if they would LIKE more children.

        That low fertility rate did not spell doom - only terrific strength, as when the economy rebounded, it was not wiped out by every more mouths to feed. The fertility rate went up in the 1950's, AFTER things got better. It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.

        The idea that Americans should breed like rodents and create massive poverty, so that the rich will no longer feel compelled to import ever more third-world refugees, is like commiting suicide to avoid the prospect of being murdered.

        Shut off the flood of people escaping the overpopulated hell of the modern third-world, and eventually wages and living conditions will rise, and yes, Americans will start having more children. But that would cost the rich profits, so we can't talk about that, only scream and holler that Americans are 'suicidial' in not having more children than they can support.

        Wrong. In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased, and the percentage of people without friends has increased.

        People aren’t having as many kids because increasing numbers of people aren’t hacking it socially.

        • Replies: @Hail

        In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased
         
        Charles Murray, in Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 to 2010, has some good analysis and data on marriages in the US; his conclusion on marriages may not be news to many reading this in 2020, but what he found was a double narrative on the decline of marriage: Among low-SES whites, marriage as an institution/norm has all but collapsed, while upper-SES whites are doing fine, with no substantial decline.

        A lot of the data in that book suggest, as an ultra-simplistic-but-not-wrong para-narrative, that the US turned against its own white working people in the latter few decades of the 20th century. A lot of the data points to that, as did the overall picture of the lay of the land by the 2000s and 2010s (one reason for Trump).

        Since the study is focused solely on Whites, Murray doesn't much mention the big parallel trend of the time, the net immigrant population increase that now approaches 100 million net new immigrant-stock citizens since the golden era of the early 1960s about which he spends the introduction waxing nostalgic.

        I'd, therefore, say a lot of it comes back to TG's original point; he got several 'Agrees' there for a reason.
      69. @Lars Porsena
        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I'd say this 'food desert' nonsense is nonsense. You don't need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don't notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options
         
        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) "local food options" means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.

        Instead of food deserts causing unhealthy eating it’s more the exact opposite. Some local liberal do-gooder types here in Indianapolis got a government grant to open a store selling healthy food in the worst inner city ghetto. It had to close after a couple years because they didn’t make enough to pay their employees.

        People in the neighborhood wanted junk food and just wouldn’t buy healthy food. The store would try to sell something like organic apples. The apples would sit there and rot. The locals didn’t care about apples and especially didn’t care about organic apples.

        The store could have switched to selling junk food that people there wanted but stores that do that in inner city ghettos have high levels of theft and also have to pay for increased security just to clamp down on bad behavior in the store. They lose money doing that and can’t make a profit. The ghetto health food store had no stealing because no one wanted what they were selling and no in store bad customer behavior since they had no customers. I was told by one of the employees they did have a problem, though, with bodies in the parking lot when junkies overdosed and died or people were murdered and their bodies were dumped there.

      70. The reason it is difficult to stay thin is that we work office jobs that involve sitting all day. You burn way more calories standing and walking than sitting.

      71. @AaronB
        On the fatness issue.

        Food consumption is a huge source of corporate profit. I read somewhere that if Americans ate 30% less, the economy would shrink.

        Edward Bernays, the great publicist, thought that in order to compete with the Soviets Americans needed to be encouraged to consume more of everything. He was the one who popularized the large American breakfast of eggs, bacon, toast, potatoes, etc. Before that, Americans ate breakfast like Europeans, a coffee and a small pastry.

        Now if I wanted to get Americans to eat more, I would try and convince them that eating moderately is too difficult. I would set the amount required for a healthy weight unreasonably low. This way, they would despair of being able to maintain a healthy weight. And indeed there is a widespread sense in America that being thin is "impossible" - only movie stars or other exceptional people can do it.

        Thus was born the 2,000 calorie daily recommended intake for men. To put that into perspective, a starvation diet study was done in the 50s - the daily calorie intake was 1,600. The Japanese, who are much smaller than us and very thin, average 2,800 calories per day.

        I stayed thin without ever counting calories, but recently I calculated my calorie intake during a period in my life when my abs were visible. It was 2,600 calories per day, with moderate activity levels. And I am an average size man, and had 10% body fat.

        The obesity epidemic dates to the 80s - it was at this time that recommendations about how much to eat went scientific, and you started hearing about calories. and traditional knowledge about portion size was discarded and we were not supposed to listen to hunger, but adhere to scientific guidelines instead.

        We obviously got it wrong - but interestingly, i think its because we recommend too little good, not too much. Whether this was deliberate I don't know.

        For most people, the key to maintaining a healthy weight is avoiding polyunsaturated oils and added sugars. These two chemical products, not foods, were not eaten before the modern era. They are the root of the chronic inflammation that leads to the diseases that are common today but rare in the past.

        Polyunsaturated oils (soybean, corn, canola) cannot be refined without making them rancid. They must be chemically processed after they are extracted to make them not rancid. Cooking temperatures will make them rancid again, and accumulation of these rancid oils in the tissues leads to heart disease, depression and anxiety, asthma, Alzheimer’s, etc.

        Sugar is addictive in high concentrations and toxic at high doses. It is also pro-inflammatory. Sugar consumption rose dramatically as the grain industry searched for new applications for its overproduction of corn in the 20th century. Most sugar in Western diets comes from corn and now contains glyphosate, which disrupts the gut microbiome.

        The weight of scientific evidence behind all these statements has been building for decades and is overwhelming at this point, yet the organizations that are trusted to provide the public with accurate nutritional advice have been resisting updating their guidelines to reflect this. The only way to find this information is to trust the word of bloggers and podcasters, or to read the studies yourself (they are all freely available).

        Why is this information suppressed? Scientists don’t want to admit that their entire careers are based on falsehoods that have caused enormous harm, industry doesn’t want the market for highly profitable processed foods to shrink or disappear, elites want the public to be fat, stupid, and lazy so that they are easier to control.

        • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
      72. @iffen
        So, the “mysterious” male mating preference tracks women’s ability to build big-brained kids.

        And don't forget that those extra-wide hips are great for birthing those big-headed babies.

        The hip measurement is actually taken across the greatest protrusion of the buttocks, so it is really a phat ass to belly lard ratio.

      73. @res

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you’re poorer.
         
        This!

        If you’re in Appalachia somewhere, though, you’re stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.
         
        It depends. Some rural areas are good places to find things like high quality milk and meat as well as fruits and vegetables either at farmstands or farmers markets. Sometimes at surprisingly reasonable prices. I'd say your part of Pennsylvania is a good example of that.

        But of course it is more work to seek out those sources than to just drive over to Wally World.

        In California the farm stands are as expensive as the more expensive supermarkets. Foods the same as they sell to the supermarkets for long term storage same with the farmers markets in the cities.

        I wonder how many of the comments are from people who actually shop and cook for families.

        • Replies: @res
        Agreed. One of the things I dislike about California. I think supply and demand has a lot to do with that. Many people with disposable cash in CA making an effort to eat well. Plus. farmers markets (etc.) are trendy.

        But not everywhere is like that. One thing that helps is if you are in an area where the farmer can run an honor system (unstaffed) stand. Another thing that helps is being in an area with a lower cost of living for the farmer.
      74. @Nodwink
        The planet can't take ten billion people who all want a car, fridge, washing machine/dryer, TV, laptop, mobile phone etc etc. We can't keep living like this.

        Thorium reactors, vertical farming, near circular economy. At 10 BN we can even have a rewilding programme. 50 BN not so much perhaps. There is hope. Malthus was wrong in 1798. He is still wrong so far.

      75. @Lars Porsena
        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I'd say this 'food desert' nonsense is nonsense. You don't need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don't notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options
         
        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) "local food options" means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        Look, friend, in America we subsidize grain and effectively penalize raw vegetables and fruits. That is why we are fat.

        Of course you aren’t “forced” to eat the prepared foods – but the prepared foods are cheaper, and easier – and those are both big considerations for a wage slave (or a welfare bum)

        Additionally, I might add as an aside that the quality of apples, among other things, at Wal-Mart is terrible compared to the fresh eastern fruit I am able to otherwise grow or acquire. Why? Because it turns out that there are real costs involved with eating “fresh” (cold storage) Chilean or eastern Washington apples out of season instead of, say, making your own apple sauce from seconds/dropped apples in the fall when they’re available. But the food system has dumbed people down, and made them less self-reliant. Hence less homemade apple sauce, and the like.

        Read Wendell Berry: consumerist agribusiness is a disaster.

        • Replies: @Alden
        I’ve never been in a Walmart in my life. Never picked up fallen apples either. No one is forced to eat frozen and ready prepared food.

        As far as that tasteless fruit goes, it’s not really because of cold storage and early picking before it’s ripe. Sugar is what makes fruit taste good. The sugar has been bred out of modern fruit. So even if you wait for total ripeness in a standard fruit tree it won’t taste good.

        If you ever buy saplings to grow your own fruit be aware that most of the stock is the same tasteless brands the big farmers use. Your fruit won’t taste much better than supermarket fruit.

        You have to go to seed savers and other vendors to buy the old fashioned fruit saplings that still have sugar. Of course you need a single family home with land for fruit trees.

        I don’t have any fruit trees so I don’t eat fruit. Supermarket fruit has no taste. It’s not worth searching around.
        , @Lars Porsena
        On the issue of store bought produce being total crap compared to fresh local produce, there is no disagreement. This is true everywhere. This is people's own fault for buying the crap in the store instead of local stuff. People have fruit trees in their backyard and won't even eat the stuff, it's considered somehow gross and weird and unsafe to actually pick fruit off of plants and eat it. This is in my opinion very messed up. We used to have, like all people have traditionally had, chicken coops and gardens and things but now if it doesn't come in a plastic package it's icky and dangerous. Only the people who grow the stuff and/or go to farmers markets and such will have access to much better (local) produce.

        Like say bananas, there are many varieties besides just cavendish. But I will never have access to any of them because bananas don't grow around here, and most of those other varieties would rot to mush by the time they got here in a shipping package. Tomatoes or apples and pears however do grow around here and once you've tried a good tomato you will never have any use for that crap in the store again. Store bought beefsteak tomatoes are so damn bad they have actually convinced people tomatoes are vegetables! Store bought cherry tomatoes are better but still heavily on the bland and sour side and nothing compared to what you can grow at home. And something like mulberries, you will never find them in a store anywhere. They are delicious, and now exotic and exclusive. You have to have access to a tree and endure weird looks from your friends and neighbors for eating wild plants like some kind of savage pre-internet troglodyte throwback. And a lot of people will insist they are poisonous for no reason whatsoever.

        The cultivars of every fruit we typically eat number in the hundreds if not the thousands and there is astonishing diversity too. The cultivars in the store are not selected for taste, they are selected for shipping, storage, and appearance.

        But that's the idiots own damn fault, basically because it is their preference. If you give people a choice between a delicious fruit that is a bit mottled looking, small, and irregular and a stupidly large mono-colored blemishless fruit that tastes like fibrous card board, people prefer the telegenic fruits that taste like crap. Mottling and irregular shapes are considered gross and undesirable. They also have some kind of enthusiasm and preference for bizarrely large fruits, even though it is price per pound not price per unit of fruit, they seemingly get a kick out of enormous produce and prefer it even it tastes objectively bad.

        Those Cavendish bananas I mentioned, they are sold in the store green and I am pretty sure a lot of people are eating them yellow at most. They probably throw them out if they get ripe. You may as well eat a raw potato or a bag of starch when they are bright pretty yellow. They are supposed to be turning brown with black freckles if you want them to actually taste like banana. Try getting people to even eat those.

        If they lack for access to decent produce it's because they don't want decent produce they want (ideally) wax produce used to model for art deco paintings.

        At any rate, I agree with you about the grain. The food pyramid is whack, all the default assumptions pushed through the culture are wrong.

        But it's not a food desert. They have access they just don't use it. You have produce at Walmart you also have meat, eggs, you have prepared meals that are low cal too. People don't use it. You can argue that it is partly education and acculturation. People think using lard is bad or that vegetable shortening is somehow in any way better. It's calorically the same and lard is possibly healthier if not the same. They think eggs for breakfast is bad for you and your weight but they think cereal is somehow better when it's actually probably worse for your diet. A lot of that was probably paid for by General Mills and Archer Daniels and what have you. But still, it's a problem of education, not of access. They have access, they just don't know what their doing.

        And where produce is concerned, Archer Daniels has an interest in making it as appealing as possible. They are chasing the market's demand for pretty but crappy produce.

        And while I am on the subject, I bet a lot of them are eating that cereal on a diet with skim milk. Do a blind taste test and see how many of them can tell the difference between skim milk and 50% whole milk 50% water. Skim milk and whole milk cost the same per gallon.... And then you get all this "no transfat" and "organic" gimmickry. And then "diet" cookies and ice cream and soda. Artificial sweeteners are rat poison, taste like rat poison, and I've never seen a skinny person touch one. After several decades I think it's safe to say it's not working for the fat people. It's not lack of access to real sugar in moderation, nor lack of access to actually ripe bananas that actually taste like banana, or scrambled eggs. They won't touch that stuff. They want nachos and grain, "healthy" rice cakes and quinoa and granola and "diet" cookies with "0 grams fat".
      76. @Tulip
        Obesity epidemic has everything to do with female labor market participation and the decline of working class marriages and families eating home cooked meals around the dinner table. Your working class household is now a female head-of-household working three part-time jobs to support one to three children, who relies on fast food or prepared meals to feed the household. She has neither the time nor the means to afford a gym. Its the upper-middle class, married, households that eat organic and have the fitness trainer.

        The other part of it is soft-drink companies pushing soda on children in schools, etc. Restrictions on soft drinks have reversed obesity rates in children to some extent.

        I doubt poor people eat fast food all the time. I see those KFC chicken dinner for 4 ads all the time. $20.99 plus tax, $22.00. The meat is legs and thighs with bone and skin. 8 ounces mashed potatoes 8 ounces coleslaw 2 corn cobs cut in half 4 biscuits.

        5 people for dinner tonight, 2 teens, 3 adults.

        I’ve got a package of 6 large boneless skinless chicken breasts thawing right now. All meat, no waste$7.00. Mashed potatoes will come from a 10 pound bag, the only size she buys. $5.00 for a 10 pound bag russets. 5 russets from that bag maybe $1.50. Half a cabbage, 2 grated carrots couple blobs of mayonnaise. $1.50. Can of corn $2.00.

        So I’m feeding 5 a chicken dinner for $12.00 instead of 4 for $22.00. 4 biscuits would cost about 75 cents to make 1 cup of flour 1/2 tsp baking powder blob of margarine , water.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that children can fix snacks at age 7 and cook about age 10-12. Nothing to prevent the kids from peeling and cutting up potatoes making salad and getting dinner going when they come home from school is there?

        People who have teens tell me those cooking shows inspire the kids to cook dinner. They come from school hungry fix a snack and turn on the TV. A cooking show comes on. They realize they’ve got the ingredients and start cooking.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that women often make a big pot of spaghetti sauce chili pot roast curry mashed potatoes rice max&cheese enough for 3 meals and all it needs is heating up.

        Also depends on the age of the kids. If all 3 are under 7 they’d eat half a chicken breast, a generous tablespoon of potatoes coleslaw and corn. So subtract $3.50 for the chicken $2.50 for the potatoes corn and coleslaw,

        If the kids were 11 and older they’d eat the whole meal homemade for $12.00 instead of $22.00

        Many poor single moms with 3 kids are on complete welfare don’t work and have plenty of time to cook. Even if they work, they get food stamps. Food stamps can’t be spent on prepared food. The cash part of the welfare can be spent on restaurant food but they need the cash for utilities rent etc.

        You can feed 4 people bacon eggs and toast every day for a week for the cost of 4 egg Mac muffins breakfasts for one day.

        • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
        "Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize..."

        As a young childless man I'd cook a big load of assorted vegetables, go out and buy the hottest vegetable curry my local Indian sold (a 'phal', I think it's a UK thing, hotter than vindaloo), stir that in and have five days supply of veg curry, a limited but healthy diet.
      77. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Look, friend, in America we subsidize grain and effectively penalize raw vegetables and fruits. That is why we are fat.

        Of course you aren't "forced" to eat the prepared foods - but the prepared foods are cheaper, and easier - and those are both big considerations for a wage slave (or a welfare bum)

        Additionally, I might add as an aside that the quality of apples, among other things, at Wal-Mart is terrible compared to the fresh eastern fruit I am able to otherwise grow or acquire. Why? Because it turns out that there are real costs involved with eating "fresh" (cold storage) Chilean or eastern Washington apples out of season instead of, say, making your own apple sauce from seconds/dropped apples in the fall when they're available. But the food system has dumbed people down, and made them less self-reliant. Hence less homemade apple sauce, and the like.

        Read Wendell Berry: consumerist agribusiness is a disaster.

        I’ve never been in a Walmart in my life. Never picked up fallen apples either. No one is forced to eat frozen and ready prepared food.

        As far as that tasteless fruit goes, it’s not really because of cold storage and early picking before it’s ripe. Sugar is what makes fruit taste good. The sugar has been bred out of modern fruit. So even if you wait for total ripeness in a standard fruit tree it won’t taste good.

        If you ever buy saplings to grow your own fruit be aware that most of the stock is the same tasteless brands the big farmers use. Your fruit won’t taste much better than supermarket fruit.

        You have to go to seed savers and other vendors to buy the old fashioned fruit saplings that still have sugar. Of course you need a single family home with land for fruit trees.

        I don’t have any fruit trees so I don’t eat fruit. Supermarket fruit has no taste. It’s not worth searching around.

      78. Here in California, I asked a slim (redundancy) Asian-American gal what her favorite food is, and she replied “vegetables.” That is one solution to the epidemic. The second solution was discovered decades ago by a nutritionist named Rena Wing. It is to run, walk, shuffle, whatever, but somehow traverse, 26 miles per week. Not merely park in the farthest parking space; 26 miles; sorry overweight doc, it is not park in the farthest parking space.

        • Replies: @Alden
        Vegetables are carbs and all carbs turn into glucose (sugars) by the time they get through the intestines into the blood stream. That’s the theory behind the high protein diets
      79. @Rosie
        I'm always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        But then, no I'm not really that puzzled. Any excuse to oppress and limit women will do. Men's freedoms are absolute. Women's rights are negotiable.

        I’m puzzled about how many of the men punditing and pontificating about how women don’t cook and feed their families on nothing but fast food have ever food shopped and cooked a meal for a family.

        Conservatives are a strange group. Totally ignore black on White crime that’s aided and abetted by government and liberal media. Totally ignore affirmative action discrimination for every job from Dr to dishwasher, But obsess about how women should have more children and criticize cooking and meals.

        You can tell these men don’t food shop and cook because they seem to think cooking is a complicated time consuming difficult process

      80. @Nodwink
        The planet can't take ten billion people who all want a car, fridge, washing machine/dryer, TV, laptop, mobile phone etc etc. We can't keep living like this.

        The planet can’t take ten billion people who all want a car, fridge, washing machine/dryer, TV, laptop, mobile phone etc etc

        I don’t know about the rest of it, but TVs, laptops, and mobile phones are probably pretty easy to handle. Energy requirements are pretty low for optimized devices like ARM CPUs and LEDs. The monitor I am using now only uses like 17W and is comfortably large. And we are pretty good at recycling minerals and finding other sources, when we need to.

        Don’t get me wrong: I am not some bleeding heart. I’d try to find the place that receives the most “Hey, cousin, come to Europe and go on welfare, and live like a king!” calls and drop an EMP on it.

      81. @Ash Williams

        It’s actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don’t know
         
        .

        How about instead of "educating" them that they are just as good as men in every way, and should be competing with them, we educate them about themselves (women are better at some things, men are better at others), and that they have a limited window to have children.

        ...And then, support them in their second career, if the first one they choose is to be a mother.

        You’re making too much sense.
        Today women are brainwashed to believe that they’re superior and better in every way. There is not a single trait, where men are better. Proof:

        There are 1.5 females getting higher education for every male. Most get good-for-nothing degrees that don’t produce or generate anything of value, but are involved in redistribution of wealth created by productive women and men. This includes all kinds of social studies, women’s studies, hate-whitey studies, diversity champions (normal high school today can have staff of 10-20 totally involved in championing diversity) and affirmative action/quotas to push women into STEM.

        Add to this, that women on subconscious level want someone who is at least equal to them in social status and you’ll understand why so many women cannot find ‘worthy’ husband, enjoy life and have 2.58 children on average that they want.

      82. “Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?”

        That all depends on what you mean by easy.

        I have purchased to exercise equipment:

        a bicycle: I loved riding and it was great exercise — however: often weather dependent, requires maintenance and can be dangerous (even when obeying the traffic laws and being will lit)

        a waterrower : if it works as designed minus any defects: convenient, fully body, low impact exercise

        However, walking doesn’t cost a dime save for the appropriate safty gear which is bright clothing and lights for walking at night

        However, depending one’s metabolism, body chemistry, etc. one has to actually put in the work to change increase the body’s use of fat. Some people have to work harder than others — but you don;t have to become an professional athlete to lose weight and improve health. The other major consideration is diet – the lower the fat retaining carbs the better.

        Getting rid of excess weight can be as much dietary as anything else. The work is in making the required changes to lifestyle and then maintaining it.

      83. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Look, friend, in America we subsidize grain and effectively penalize raw vegetables and fruits. That is why we are fat.

        Of course you aren't "forced" to eat the prepared foods - but the prepared foods are cheaper, and easier - and those are both big considerations for a wage slave (or a welfare bum)

        Additionally, I might add as an aside that the quality of apples, among other things, at Wal-Mart is terrible compared to the fresh eastern fruit I am able to otherwise grow or acquire. Why? Because it turns out that there are real costs involved with eating "fresh" (cold storage) Chilean or eastern Washington apples out of season instead of, say, making your own apple sauce from seconds/dropped apples in the fall when they're available. But the food system has dumbed people down, and made them less self-reliant. Hence less homemade apple sauce, and the like.

        Read Wendell Berry: consumerist agribusiness is a disaster.

        On the issue of store bought produce being total crap compared to fresh local produce, there is no disagreement. This is true everywhere. This is people’s own fault for buying the crap in the store instead of local stuff. People have fruit trees in their backyard and won’t even eat the stuff, it’s considered somehow gross and weird and unsafe to actually pick fruit off of plants and eat it. This is in my opinion very messed up. We used to have, like all people have traditionally had, chicken coops and gardens and things but now if it doesn’t come in a plastic package it’s icky and dangerous. Only the people who grow the stuff and/or go to farmers markets and such will have access to much better (local) produce.

        Like say bananas, there are many varieties besides just cavendish. But I will never have access to any of them because bananas don’t grow around here, and most of those other varieties would rot to mush by the time they got here in a shipping package. Tomatoes or apples and pears however do grow around here and once you’ve tried a good tomato you will never have any use for that crap in the store again. Store bought beefsteak tomatoes are so damn bad they have actually convinced people tomatoes are vegetables! Store bought cherry tomatoes are better but still heavily on the bland and sour side and nothing compared to what you can grow at home. And something like mulberries, you will never find them in a store anywhere. They are delicious, and now exotic and exclusive. You have to have access to a tree and endure weird looks from your friends and neighbors for eating wild plants like some kind of savage pre-internet troglodyte throwback. And a lot of people will insist they are poisonous for no reason whatsoever.

        The cultivars of every fruit we typically eat number in the hundreds if not the thousands and there is astonishing diversity too. The cultivars in the store are not selected for taste, they are selected for shipping, storage, and appearance.

        But that’s the idiots own damn fault, basically because it is their preference. If you give people a choice between a delicious fruit that is a bit mottled looking, small, and irregular and a stupidly large mono-colored blemishless fruit that tastes like fibrous card board, people prefer the telegenic fruits that taste like crap. Mottling and irregular shapes are considered gross and undesirable. They also have some kind of enthusiasm and preference for bizarrely large fruits, even though it is price per pound not price per unit of fruit, they seemingly get a kick out of enormous produce and prefer it even it tastes objectively bad.

        Those Cavendish bananas I mentioned, they are sold in the store green and I am pretty sure a lot of people are eating them yellow at most. They probably throw them out if they get ripe. You may as well eat a raw potato or a bag of starch when they are bright pretty yellow. They are supposed to be turning brown with black freckles if you want them to actually taste like banana. Try getting people to even eat those.

        If they lack for access to decent produce it’s because they don’t want decent produce they want (ideally) wax produce used to model for art deco paintings.

        At any rate, I agree with you about the grain. The food pyramid is whack, all the default assumptions pushed through the culture are wrong.

        But it’s not a food desert. They have access they just don’t use it. You have produce at Walmart you also have meat, eggs, you have prepared meals that are low cal too. People don’t use it. You can argue that it is partly education and acculturation. People think using lard is bad or that vegetable shortening is somehow in any way better. It’s calorically the same and lard is possibly healthier if not the same. They think eggs for breakfast is bad for you and your weight but they think cereal is somehow better when it’s actually probably worse for your diet. A lot of that was probably paid for by General Mills and Archer Daniels and what have you. But still, it’s a problem of education, not of access. They have access, they just don’t know what their doing.

        And where produce is concerned, Archer Daniels has an interest in making it as appealing as possible. They are chasing the market’s demand for pretty but crappy produce.

        And while I am on the subject, I bet a lot of them are eating that cereal on a diet with skim milk. Do a blind taste test and see how many of them can tell the difference between skim milk and 50% whole milk 50% water. Skim milk and whole milk cost the same per gallon…. And then you get all this “no transfat” and “organic” gimmickry. And then “diet” cookies and ice cream and soda. Artificial sweeteners are rat poison, taste like rat poison, and I’ve never seen a skinny person touch one. After several decades I think it’s safe to say it’s not working for the fat people. It’s not lack of access to real sugar in moderation, nor lack of access to actually ripe bananas that actually taste like banana, or scrambled eggs. They won’t touch that stuff. They want nachos and grain, “healthy” rice cakes and quinoa and granola and “diet” cookies with “0 grams fat”.

      84. @dfordoom


        “It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.”
         
        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don’t want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence — because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.
         
        Agreed. The idea that declining fertility is caused by immigration is complete nonsense.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none. As long as we think and behave as individuals fertility rates will remain very very low.

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) - these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.

        The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice.

        None of this has anything to do with immigration which is merely a response (and from their point of view a rational response even if it's thoroughly evil from society's point of view) by capitalists to the thing they most fear, which is that markets will cease to grow and corporate profits will therefore cease to grow. Immigration is the result of declining fertility rates, not the cause.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.

        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community… these are very very unattractive choices

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.

        • Replies: @silviosilver

        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?
         
        I think he just meant economically better off.
        , @dfordoom


        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?
         
        I was reporting a fact, not advocating a lifestyle choice.

        It's clear that most people think they're better off with one child, or none. Because that's what most people choose. From their point of view it's a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn't make that choice.

        You might not agree with their choice. I might not agree with it. But it's not irrational. Looking at it purely from an individual's point of view there are strong arguments in favour of the one child or none choice. There are arguments against it as well. But on balance most people are deciding that the arguments in favour of the one child or none choice are stronger.

        Of course it may well be that people should not be thinking of themselves as individuals. But the fact is that we live in a society in which people do overwhelmingly think of themselves as individuals.

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.
         
        In that case most people in the modern world are insane. Or they live in societies that encourage insane thinking. You might crave a close-knit community (and if so I'd agree with you) but clearly most people don't. If they did they'd do something about it.
        , @dfordoom

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community
         
        Maybe I just can't help playing the Devil's Advocate, but are close-knit communities necessarily all that they're cracked up to be? I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
      85. @iffen
        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn't use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.

        If the size of the aggregate economy is ‘fixed’, then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        If the population is stable and the number of workers and working hours remain unchanged, then increased productivity must increase the size of the aggregate economy. Eg 1000 workers, working 1000 hours and producing at $100/hr = $100 million. If productivity increases to $110/hour, then the economy will grow to $110 million.

        Achieving a ‘steady state’ seems simple enough: no need to grow, we’re rich enough as it is, we’ll just reproduce what we produced last year, every year from here on out. But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.

        • Replies: @iffen
        If the size of the aggregate economy is ‘fixed’, then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        I knew that wouldn't get by the pedant patrol.

        But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.

        I don't think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.

        I just don't buy the massive propaganda issued by conventional wisdom that we absolutely "have to have" population growth or it will be dystopia all the way down if we don't. I also believe that our current economic model has a problem and will have problems if we don't have population growth.
      86. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-obesity-meals-tv-idUSKBN16928E

        Past research has suggested that more frequent family meals are linked to lower obesity, but in the current study of more than 12,000 Ohio residents, eating at home, rather than out, and without the television on, was tied to lower obesity risk regardless of how often family was present.

      87. @Rosie
        I'm always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        But then, no I'm not really that puzzled. Any excuse to oppress and limit women will do. Men's freedoms are absolute. Women's rights are negotiable.

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        I agree with this conclusion. However, no one serious advocates denying women education, except fringe commenters on fringe blogs. I doubt they add up to 5% of the male population, I’d even that. So you can stop punching (rhetorically) imaginary evil males like the leftists who are always on about white supremacists (while getting mugged by black criminals in real life).

        • Replies: @Rosie

        However, no one serious advocates denying women education, except fringe commenters on fringe blogs. I doubt they add up to 5% of the male population, I’d even that. So you can stop punching (rhetorically) imaginary evil males like the leftists who are always on about white supremacists (while getting mugged by black criminals in real life).
         
        I assure you I am well aware that these freaks do not represent men as a whole, but that is certainly no reason to let their nonsense go unanswered. You know, optics and all that.
      88. @Intelligent Dasein
        Cheap commercial air transport for the masses has made travel very much less of a mark of distinction than it used to be. There is no truly exotic spot anymore, because every last forelorn lump of rock has already been visit by an uncomprehending mob of tourists and the global culture has spread itself throughout the world.

        Like everything else these days, travel has had all the depth taken out of it. Just like the age of endless stock market gains and internet millionaires has resulted in a slew of parvenues who have money but no class or taste, so also are there now well-travelled individuals who have not thereby gained any sophistication or insight, which used to be regarded as the very point of travel and which lent it its high-status tinctures to begin with.

        What I would not give for a world in which wealth and class were more closely correlated and where learning and sophistication had not been bowdlerized by mass market consumption.

        Traveling for instant novelty and photo-ops might have become cheap, but the old upperclass style tours of a region (which often took weeks and months) are still costly.

        I always tell people that I hate traveling, but enjoy living in other countries and studying their peoples, histories, and cultures… and killing them. That always shuts down the inane “When I went to India… “ or “When I was in Africa for a week-long medical mission…” type of conversations.

        • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
        In the UK it's a thing for schools or adult individuals to sign up for a week 'working' in a Thai orphanage or a Zambian school. I think some of these "orphanages" are actually businesses where the kids aren't even orphans.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2418074/Fake-orphanages-Bogus-animal-sanctuaries-And-crooks-growing-rich-Western-gullibility--gooding-gap-year-holidays-horrifyingly-callous-con.html

        It's sort-of impressive - these people have discovered how to monetise Western virtue-signalling just as well as any advertiser promoting the new Green agendas of some megacompany.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        A cousin of mine used to regularly wear a shirt like this.
      89. @Rosie

        Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker – the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs
         
        Travel is wonderful, but like so many wonderful things, it's only wonderful for so long. After awhile, it's just more of the same, even when you go someplace new. I scratched that itch when I was young, and have never had any desire to travel much since then.

        Very true. After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves: feeling lost among a people you don’t understand; weirdass locals whose ways irritate you but you bite your tongue cos it’s not your country; answering the same boring questions about where you’re from etc; excitedly seeing the sights, followed quickly by the realization that it’s not all that special.

        The only kind of international travel I’d be interested in now is if I lived in Europe, doing a car trip for a few days, or better yet in an RV. Those trips are quick, cheap, and fun (at least if you enjoy driving, as I do). I’m actually thinking of retiring youngish (50-55) and doing just that. That’s still quite a few years away, so whether it’s feasible depends on how I do financially till then. But it’s an enticing prospect.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves:
         
        The most exciting thing about travel is that it allows you to "try on" someone else's culture, to see the world in a new way, from a whole new perspective. By nature, this is an exhilarating experience, but it is also singular. The exhilaration happens only once. Then, it's just, as you say, a dreary pattern.

        I may decide to do some travelling with my kids later on. Kids make everything fresh and new again.
        , @Twinkie

        the same dreary patterns
         
        That’s because people are basically the same everywhere, HBD notwithstanding.
      90. @Twinkie

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        I agree with this conclusion. However, no one serious advocates denying women education, except fringe commenters on fringe blogs. I doubt they add up to 5% of the male population, I’d even that. So you can stop punching (rhetorically) imaginary evil males like the leftists who are always on about white supremacists (while getting mugged by black criminals in real life).

        However, no one serious advocates denying women education, except fringe commenters on fringe blogs. I doubt they add up to 5% of the male population, I’d even that. So you can stop punching (rhetorically) imaginary evil males like the leftists who are always on about white supremacists (while getting mugged by black criminals in real life).

        I assure you I am well aware that these freaks do not represent men as a whole, but that is certainly no reason to let their nonsense go unanswered. You know, optics and all that.

      91. @silviosilver
        Very true. After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves: feeling lost among a people you don't understand; weirdass locals whose ways irritate you but you bite your tongue cos it's not your country; answering the same boring questions about where you're from etc; excitedly seeing the sights, followed quickly by the realization that it's not all that special.

        The only kind of international travel I'd be interested in now is if I lived in Europe, doing a car trip for a few days, or better yet in an RV. Those trips are quick, cheap, and fun (at least if you enjoy driving, as I do). I'm actually thinking of retiring youngish (50-55) and doing just that. That's still quite a few years away, so whether it's feasible depends on how I do financially till then. But it's an enticing prospect.

        After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves:

        The most exciting thing about travel is that it allows you to “try on” someone else’s culture, to see the world in a new way, from a whole new perspective. By nature, this is an exhilarating experience, but it is also singular. The exhilaration happens only once. Then, it’s just, as you say, a dreary pattern.

        I may decide to do some travelling with my kids later on. Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        Can confirm.
      92. @Twinkie

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community... these are very very unattractive choices
         
        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.

        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        I think he just meant economically better off.

      93. @Alden
        In California the farm stands are as expensive as the more expensive supermarkets. Foods the same as they sell to the supermarkets for long term storage same with the farmers markets in the cities.

        I wonder how many of the comments are from people who actually shop and cook for families.

        Agreed. One of the things I dislike about California. I think supply and demand has a lot to do with that. Many people with disposable cash in CA making an effort to eat well. Plus. farmers markets (etc.) are trendy.

        But not everywhere is like that. One thing that helps is if you are in an area where the farmer can run an honor system (unstaffed) stand. Another thing that helps is being in an area with a lower cost of living for the farmer.

        • Replies: @Alden
        The fruit on the farm stands comes from the farmer’s fruit trees. Those are the same brands of fruit he sells to the supermarket. It’s the same fruit, whether the farmer sells it to a huge wholesaler, puts it in his farm stand or brings it to a trendy farmers market.

        For decent fruit, start with the saplings of the old fashioned forgotten brands of fruit. Seed savers and other sources sell the trees that produce sweet tasty fruit.

        I believe some farmers are going back to the sweet tasting fruit brand trees.
      94. @NJ Transit Commuter
        I’d be curious to hear from others if an observation I have I correct.

        To my eyes, fitness in America is becoming more bifurcated. I see more really fit people, both the lean running types and the cut and huge weight lifters, than ever before. I also see more grotesquely obese people than ever before. It seems like there is a decline of normal, reasonably fit but with love handles people.

        It’s tempting to draw a larger analogy about the decline of the middle class. People with the right combination of genes and discipline are increasing successful physically and financially. Those who lack those two traits are increasingly left behind.

        I think if Americans from 50 years ago travelled to today they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won’t be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture….that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.

        • Agree: Hail, Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Red Pill Angel
        "they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won’t be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture….that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women."

        Yes. The men in action movies have for some time looked frightening to me, obviously on steroids; they seem to be designed to appeal to gay men, certainly not most women. I remember seeing a photo of young men in WWII without their shirts. They were uniformly slim and wiry, not hugely muscular or fat. I seldom see young men who look like that now.

        The obesity in women seems odd, too. I see too many younger women with fat bellies and small breasts, as if they have too much testosterone, although they don't seem masculinized otherwise as far as hairiness or deep voices.

        Has anyone considered the possibilty that a lifetime of hormone birth control could be what's going on? It imitates pregnancy. Somewhere I read that research had shown that if a woman diets during pregnancy to keep her weight down, her baby will end up smaller but the mother will still put on fat, because her body thinks she is in danger of starving and wants to make sure she can nurse the baby if famine strikes. The advent of birth control pills coincides roughly with the rise of obesity in the West. One would think that the pill would add fat in the usual feminine depots, though, but the women I see now look almost pregnant. Very odd.

        During my time tutoring young black athletes, they were at pains to inform me that black men don't really like sloppy fat women, but prefer small waists and big booties. But black men have more testosterone which makes them determined to have sex with someone no matter what. I read once about a man who went on testosterone and wrote about the experience. The first thing he noticed was that >everyone< started to look sexier. White guys seem very sad now, reduced to pointing out the ugliness of women around them instead of having practice sex with said women who might be happy to oblige them. Hate to sound crass, but it's true. Young blacks at least seem to be having some fun, between shooting up the joint and actually having sexual relations with actual women, at least until they get put in jail.
      95. @Sparkon
        Luckily, obese women these days can just squeeze themselves into form-fitting tights to, you know, hide the fat, which is what you want to do for a shopping trip to Wally World.

        It helps also to conceal the heaving mounds of flabby flesh if you have some sparkly nails and a few tattoos. It may work. Some guys are truly desperate...

        "I'd F*** a rockpile if I thought there was a snake in it."

        -- Traditional American Horny Toad's response¹
         
        Well, it wasn't until the introduction of high fructose corn syrup and especially artificial sweeteners like Aspartame that the obesity epidemic really got into high gear.

        Oh, my aching eyes.

        Well, at least when I was a young man, most American women were slender, looked great, and dressed well to attract guys, and eventually get married, "settle down," and have babies. It was a simple equation that had worked pretty well over the centuries until scowling feminists like the repulsive American Betty Friedan convinced women to trash all that, and go for something else. We're reaping the obese harvest of that still today, because it's all good, even it you're a pig.

        At least you've escaped all those chauvinistic males!

        Psst: now that I'm getting up there in years, and after a shopping trip to WW, I try to recover with a parade of slender young ladies who arrive at my bachelor pad to help with the dusting, and then stick around for refreshments, and to model for some life drawing.² ³

        It may be true that some things just can't be unseen, but, after a shopping trip to WW, it's certainly worth a try.

        ¹ Response to the question "You'd F*** her?"

        ² As Hokusai put it, "Learning to draw never ends."

        ³ Italicized items with"Psst" are usually fanciful and strictly for comic effect.

        So stay away from Walmart.

        • Replies: @Sparkon
        Actually, it's not a bad store. They usually have a good selection in produce of things I like - broccoli, spinach, potatoes. I buy filets, tri-tips, rib eyes from their meat market. They don't have a real butcher shop, but it's good enough. Diary there also has everything I want - yogurt, butter, cheese, eggs, 2% milk and Tru-Moo chocolate milk. I also lug drinking water, but I can do it all in one stop and that's it for a week until the perishables are gone and I do it all over again.

        As for the other customers...well, I really do find it heartbreaking when I see a grossly obese woman these days, an experience which is not confined to Walmart. I just can't imagine how you could eat that much to get so fat.

        I'm convinced that the obesity epidemic must be due to some underappreciated factor like high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners in food and beverages.

        Just as Trump tweeted. Diet Coke makes you gain weight.
      96. @silviosilver
        Very true. After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves: feeling lost among a people you don't understand; weirdass locals whose ways irritate you but you bite your tongue cos it's not your country; answering the same boring questions about where you're from etc; excitedly seeing the sights, followed quickly by the realization that it's not all that special.

        The only kind of international travel I'd be interested in now is if I lived in Europe, doing a car trip for a few days, or better yet in an RV. Those trips are quick, cheap, and fun (at least if you enjoy driving, as I do). I'm actually thinking of retiring youngish (50-55) and doing just that. That's still quite a few years away, so whether it's feasible depends on how I do financially till then. But it's an enticing prospect.

        the same dreary patterns

        That’s because people are basically the same everywhere, HBD notwithstanding.

      97. @Thomm
        Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don't oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don't mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like 'rotund' become applicable.

        Have some sympathy for men like Thomm, his ilk have choice among these women:

      98. @SFG
        Oh, enough with the white nationalists having every possible negative trait. They're very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.

        They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.

        No. In my experience, the 60% that are straight are undeterred by female obesity, and sometimes even prefer it. This, of course, is also true of black men.

        40% of WNs are gay, of course. They say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, as race loyalty trumps sexual orientation (which in their case was tenuous at best anyway).

        • Agree: JohnPlywood
        • Replies: @silviosilver
        Lol. 90% of your posts are the same sad hindoo cope.

        It'd be healthier to just get over it.
      99. @Thomm

        They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.
         
        No. In my experience, the 60% that are straight are undeterred by female obesity, and sometimes even prefer it. This, of course, is also true of black men.

        40% of WNs are gay, of course. They say that they would rather have sex with a white man than a black woman, as race loyalty trumps sexual orientation (which in their case was tenuous at best anyway).

        Lol. 90% of your posts are the same sad hindoo cope.

        It’d be healthier to just get over it.

        • Replies: @Thomm
        False and false.

        I have contributed priceless thought leadership to this topic, which is an essential branch of HBD thought.

        I caught you enjoying one of the songs I wrote the other day. You ought to express gratitude.

        Heh heh heh heh
      100. @Alden
        So stay away from Walmart.

        Actually, it’s not a bad store. They usually have a good selection in produce of things I like – broccoli, spinach, potatoes. I buy filets, tri-tips, rib eyes from their meat market. They don’t have a real butcher shop, but it’s good enough. Diary there also has everything I want – yogurt, butter, cheese, eggs, 2% milk and Tru-Moo chocolate milk. I also lug drinking water, but I can do it all in one stop and that’s it for a week until the perishables are gone and I do it all over again.

        As for the other customers…well, I really do find it heartbreaking when I see a grossly obese woman these days, an experience which is not confined to Walmart. I just can’t imagine how you could eat that much to get so fat.

        I’m convinced that the obesity epidemic must be due to some underappreciated factor like high fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners in food and beverages.

        Just as Trump tweeted. Diet Coke makes you gain weight.

      101. @Rosie
        I'm always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        But then, no I'm not really that puzzled. Any excuse to oppress and limit women will do. Men's freedoms are absolute. Women's rights are negotiable.

        a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        From reading your comments on this website, I assume you are arguing here from the perspective of someone who identifies the need to stabilize the birthrate while promoting eugenic fertility and/or reducing dysgenic fertility.

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around? Or is there something else?

        What is your solution?

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around?
         
        I'm saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women's education, or any at all for that matter.

        Or is there something else?
         
        Yes, White Pride Worldwide!

        Israel has very healthy fertility, even among highly educated, secular women. They take pride in their heritage and recognize the need to reproduce if their people are to have a future.
      102. @silviosilver
        Lol. 90% of your posts are the same sad hindoo cope.

        It'd be healthier to just get over it.

        False and false.

        I have contributed priceless thought leadership to this topic, which is an essential branch of HBD thought.

        I caught you enjoying one of the songs I wrote the other day. You ought to express gratitude.

        Heh heh heh heh

      103. @Anon
        Wrong. In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased, and the percentage of people without friends has increased.

        People aren't having as many kids because increasing numbers of people aren't hacking it socially.

        In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased

        Charles Murray, in Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 to 2010, has some good analysis and data on marriages in the US; his conclusion on marriages may not be news to many reading this in 2020, but what he found was a double narrative on the decline of marriage: Among low-SES whites, marriage as an institution/norm has all but collapsed, while upper-SES whites are doing fine, with no substantial decline.

        A lot of the data in that book suggest, as an ultra-simplistic-but-not-wrong para-narrative, that the US turned against its own white working people in the latter few decades of the 20th century. A lot of the data points to that, as did the overall picture of the lay of the land by the 2000s and 2010s (one reason for Trump).

        Since the study is focused solely on Whites, Murray doesn’t much mention the big parallel trend of the time, the net immigrant population increase that now approaches 100 million net new immigrant-stock citizens since the golden era of the early 1960s about which he spends the introduction waxing nostalgic.

        I’d, therefore, say a lot of it comes back to TG’s original point; he got several ‘Agrees’ there for a reason.

        • Replies: @Anon
        The white poverty thing is hogwash. When you account for purchasing power, people are far more well-off today than in 1970.

        Not having money to raise lots of kids =/= not ever getting married and not even having sex. These problems are afflicting Americans more than ever before, especially with younger generations.

        Look at this:

        https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/

        It is not at all impossible to get married and make babies if you are not High SES. Our grandparents all did this, and did ok. Even if you are poor, you can always afford *one* baby.

        Black and Hispanic people do fine without much money. Did you know that the government gives free breakfast and lunch in public schools? You do not need too much money to reproduce.
      104. @iffen
        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn't use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.

        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn’t use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.

        Thee’s no reason at all why that couldn’t be done. Except that capitalism (despite propaganda to the contrary) is not highly efficient. Most large corporations are as lazy and inefficient and incompetent as most bureaucracies. They don’t want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.

        It’s another reason why free markets are not as great an idea as their proponents would like you to believe.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        They don’t want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.
         
        Or labor arbitrage. Hence, there corporations think it's "efficient" to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.

        https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/world/container-ship-loses-containers/index.html
      105. @dfordoom

        I mean that it must be expanding in size. There should be no reason that we couldn’t use productivity gains in a stable or shrinking population to increase per capita economic well being.
         
        Thee's no reason at all why that couldn't be done. Except that capitalism (despite propaganda to the contrary) is not highly efficient. Most large corporations are as lazy and inefficient and incompetent as most bureaucracies. They don't want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.

        It's another reason why free markets are not as great an idea as their proponents would like you to believe.

        They don’t want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.

        Or labor arbitrage. Hence, there corporations think it’s “efficient” to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.

        https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/world/container-ship-loses-containers/index.html

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Hence, there corporations think it’s “efficient” to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.
         
        A lot of our problems stem from the fact that we're not forcing capitalism to serve society. We've allowed society to be made to serve capitalism.

        Capitalism might possibly be a good servant but it's a terrible master.
      106. @Tulip
        1. Capable young people come out of college saddled with debt.

        2. Less capable young people go into labor market in which wages have been essentially stagnant for 50 years (thank you for the immigrants).

        3. Fed props up asset bubbles in the stock market and real estate market, while the government bails out the swindlers.

        4. Young people, even with means, cannot afford to buy housing or otherwise engage in the "American Dream" lifestyle that produces offspring.

        5. Not to mention "feminism", which was probably only initially intended to seduce nubile females into the clutches of lesbian crones, has the consequences driving men into either being gay or ordering Asian mail order brides, not to mention turning the women who should be having children into sexless worker drones climbing a meaningless corporate hierarchy, or prostituting themselves to investment bankers to pay off college debt. Not to mention helping to crater wages in the labor market.

        Manipulate the labor markets to freeze wages, prop up aggregate demand with private lending (that can't get paid back because of wage stall), then bail out the banks (shifting bad loans from private liability to public liability), and reduce the upcoming generation to debt-peonage through student loans, prop up asset bubbles, throw in some "austerity", and then rinse and repeat.

        Christen "capital gains" off government-induced asset bubbles as "economic growth" while aggregate production of goods and serves collapse, and no man can buy a house of good stone, and the young women are left selling their bodies to decrepit financiers to work their way out of debt -peonage.

        Thank God we had MAGA come along to reverse each and every one of those trends.
        .

        Oh,

        What’s that you say?

        No real progress on reversing any of them, after three years?
        .

        Damn.

        ________

        Another knockout Tucker Carlson monologue, Jan. 20, 2020:

        “The candidate who makes it easier for 30 year olds to get married & have kids will win the election, and will deserve to win. Remember that.”

        • Replies: @Tulip
        Its pretty hilarious that "the Left" has climbed so far up their own intersectional asses that it takes a Conservative Fox News commentator to point out the obvious.
      107. @Hail

        a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        From reading your comments on this website, I assume you are arguing here from the perspective of someone who identifies the need to stabilize the birthrate while promoting eugenic fertility and/or reducing dysgenic fertility.

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around? Or is there something else?

        What is your solution?

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around?

        I’m saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women’s education, or any at all for that matter.

        Or is there something else?

        Yes, White Pride Worldwide!

        Israel has very healthy fertility, even among highly educated, secular women. They take pride in their heritage and recognize the need to reproduce if their people are to have a future.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        I’m saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women’s education, or any at all for that matter.
         
        I don't like the idea of forcing, or even coercing, people into having children. Maybe an increase in birth rates would be desirable but only if people actually want to have children.

        It amazes me that so many people on the Dissident Right (and this is not directed personally at you Rosie) seem quite relaxed about forcing white people to do things they don't want to do.

        It also depresses me that so many on the Dissident Right seem to want to make having children a moral choice, and think that people who choose to have one child or none are somehow morally lacking. I can't see any way of selling such ideas to normies (and again this is not personally directed at Rosie).
        , @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
        Israel is *very* Socialist compared to the USA. Is that what you want? Do you want Godless Communism to win?

        No, no, far better to die out, if that's what capitalism dictates. After all, the free market is wiser than us...
      108. @Twinkie

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community... these are very very unattractive choices
         
        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.

        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        I was reporting a fact, not advocating a lifestyle choice.

        It’s clear that most people think they’re better off with one child, or none. Because that’s what most people choose. From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.

        You might not agree with their choice. I might not agree with it. But it’s not irrational. Looking at it purely from an individual’s point of view there are strong arguments in favour of the one child or none choice. There are arguments against it as well. But on balance most people are deciding that the arguments in favour of the one child or none choice are stronger.

        Of course it may well be that people should not be thinking of themselves as individuals. But the fact is that we live in a society in which people do overwhelmingly think of themselves as individuals.

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.

        In that case most people in the modern world are insane. Or they live in societies that encourage insane thinking. You might crave a close-knit community (and if so I’d agree with you) but clearly most people don’t. If they did they’d do something about it.

        • Replies: @iffen
        From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.

        I'm not sure that I want to go all in on the idea that we are rational actors.

        People want conformity and validation. If I have 10 kids, I want you to have 10 kids because that's what everybody should do and if you do have 10 kids that confirms for me that I made the right decision.
      109. @Rosie
        I'm always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        But then, no I'm not really that puzzled. Any excuse to oppress and limit women will do. Men's freedoms are absolute. Women's rights are negotiable.

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.

        Are you actually advocating banning birth control? Wouldn’t banning birth control be an infringement of women’s rights? It would mean forcing women to have children against their will. I can’t see that ending well, for anybody.

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.

        It’s also possible that it’s not just the case that highly educated women want fewer children. It may be that highly educated men want fewer children as well. Maybe it’s not education for women that causes birth rates to plummet, but too much education in general.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.
         
        I've seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies, and education (indoctrination) is essential to being part of today's elite.  This appears to be why we have so many people in higher ed who want to go to work for non-profits rather than being doctors or entrepreneurs; there's no room for them anywhere else.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.
      110. @Rosie

        They don’t want to have to learn to be clever. They want easy profits, and the easy way to grow profits is to grow the market.
         
        Or labor arbitrage. Hence, there corporations think it's "efficient" to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.

        https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/world/container-ship-loses-containers/index.html

        Hence, there corporations think it’s “efficient” to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.

        A lot of our problems stem from the fact that we’re not forcing capitalism to serve society. We’ve allowed society to be made to serve capitalism.

        Capitalism might possibly be a good servant but it’s a terrible master.

        • Agree: Mr. Rational, res
        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?
      111. @Rosie

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around?
         
        I'm saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women's education, or any at all for that matter.

        Or is there something else?
         
        Yes, White Pride Worldwide!

        Israel has very healthy fertility, even among highly educated, secular women. They take pride in their heritage and recognize the need to reproduce if their people are to have a future.

        I’m saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women’s education, or any at all for that matter.

        I don’t like the idea of forcing, or even coercing, people into having children. Maybe an increase in birth rates would be desirable but only if people actually want to have children.

        It amazes me that so many people on the Dissident Right (and this is not directed personally at you Rosie) seem quite relaxed about forcing white people to do things they don’t want to do.

        It also depresses me that so many on the Dissident Right seem to want to make having children a moral choice, and think that people who choose to have one child or none are somehow morally lacking. I can’t see any way of selling such ideas to normies (and again this is not personally directed at Rosie).

        • Agree: iffen
      112. @silviosilver
        If the size of the aggregate economy is 'fixed', then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        If the population is stable and the number of workers and working hours remain unchanged, then increased productivity must increase the size of the aggregate economy. Eg 1000 workers, working 1000 hours and producing at $100/hr = $100 million. If productivity increases to $110/hour, then the economy will grow to $110 million.

        Achieving a 'steady state' seems simple enough: no need to grow, we're rich enough as it is, we'll just reproduce what we produced last year, every year from here on out. But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.

        If the size of the aggregate economy is ‘fixed’, then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        I knew that wouldn’t get by the pedant patrol.

        But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.

        I don’t think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.

        I just don’t buy the massive propaganda issued by conventional wisdom that we absolutely “have to have” population growth or it will be dystopia all the way down if we don’t. I also believe that our current economic model has a problem and will have problems if we don’t have population growth.

        • Replies: @silviosilver
        The concerns about a falling or stagnant population are that a decreasing number of working people will have to support an increasing number of retired people. That at least seems like a valid concern to me. But importing workers to alleviate it only kicks the can down the road, which given all the other problems with immigration, strikes me as a perfectly daft 'solution.' Maybe automation will step in to save the day at just the right moment.

        I don’t think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.
         
        The issue I see with a 'steady state' is that a considerable amount of economic activity only takes place in anticipation of further growth. If that further growth isn't forthcoming, then neither will the investment. In a market economy, I think this would lead to diminishing aggregate production rather than a steady state.
      113. @dfordoom


        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?
         
        I was reporting a fact, not advocating a lifestyle choice.

        It's clear that most people think they're better off with one child, or none. Because that's what most people choose. From their point of view it's a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn't make that choice.

        You might not agree with their choice. I might not agree with it. But it's not irrational. Looking at it purely from an individual's point of view there are strong arguments in favour of the one child or none choice. There are arguments against it as well. But on balance most people are deciding that the arguments in favour of the one child or none choice are stronger.

        Of course it may well be that people should not be thinking of themselves as individuals. But the fact is that we live in a society in which people do overwhelmingly think of themselves as individuals.

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.
         
        In that case most people in the modern world are insane. Or they live in societies that encourage insane thinking. You might crave a close-knit community (and if so I'd agree with you) but clearly most people don't. If they did they'd do something about it.

        From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.

        I’m not sure that I want to go all in on the idea that we are rational actors.

        People want conformity and validation. If I have 10 kids, I want you to have 10 kids because that’s what everybody should do and if you do have 10 kids that confirms for me that I made the right decision.

        • Replies: @dfordoom


        From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.
         
        I’m not sure that I want to go all in on the idea that we are rational actors.
         
        Maybe we're not rational actors but we all think that we are. We do things for what we believe to be rational reasons.

        I think that people who choose not to have lots of kids certainly believe they are making the decision on rational grounds. If people believe they have rational reasons for making certain decisions, and we disagree with those decisions, can we be certain that we're the rational ones?

        I do think that to a large extent, if you accept that people behave as individuals, there are rational reasons for choosing to have few, or no, kids.
      114. @Dumbo
        That doesn't seem much different than legalized prostitution. How much does prostitution affect white fertility in the West? Not much, I would think.

        Now educating women, that certainly reduces fertility, and Persian women are on average more educated (smarter?) than Arab ones.

        It's actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don't know.

        Infirm cucks such as yourself are the problem. Just KYS.

        • Disagree: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Dumbo
        LOL. I'm glad to know that *I* am the problem.
      115. @iffen
        If the size of the aggregate economy is ‘fixed’, then a falling population will result in a higher per capita income without any productivity gains.

        I knew that wouldn't get by the pedant patrol.

        But that would require a complete command economy, and achieving that is a tall order indeed.

        I don't think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.

        I just don't buy the massive propaganda issued by conventional wisdom that we absolutely "have to have" population growth or it will be dystopia all the way down if we don't. I also believe that our current economic model has a problem and will have problems if we don't have population growth.

        The concerns about a falling or stagnant population are that a decreasing number of working people will have to support an increasing number of retired people. That at least seems like a valid concern to me. But importing workers to alleviate it only kicks the can down the road, which given all the other problems with immigration, strikes me as a perfectly daft ‘solution.’ Maybe automation will step in to save the day at just the right moment.

        I don’t think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.

        The issue I see with a ‘steady state’ is that a considerable amount of economic activity only takes place in anticipation of further growth. If that further growth isn’t forthcoming, then neither will the investment. In a market economy, I think this would lead to diminishing aggregate production rather than a steady state.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @iffen
        The concerns about a falling or stagnant population are that a decreasing number of working people will have to support an increasing number of retired people.

        Yes, I mentioned that. It is a valid criticism of the Boomer generation that we have mortgaged our children's future to avail ourselves of increased SS benefits.
      116. @iffen
        From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.

        I'm not sure that I want to go all in on the idea that we are rational actors.

        People want conformity and validation. If I have 10 kids, I want you to have 10 kids because that's what everybody should do and if you do have 10 kids that confirms for me that I made the right decision.

        From their point of view it’s a rational choice, otherwise they wouldn’t make that choice.

        I’m not sure that I want to go all in on the idea that we are rational actors.

        Maybe we’re not rational actors but we all think that we are. We do things for what we believe to be rational reasons.

        I think that people who choose not to have lots of kids certainly believe they are making the decision on rational grounds. If people believe they have rational reasons for making certain decisions, and we disagree with those decisions, can we be certain that we’re the rational ones?

        I do think that to a large extent, if you accept that people behave as individuals, there are rational reasons for choosing to have few, or no, kids.

      117. @Twinkie

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none.
         
        Have you considered that perhaps there is something wrong with you?

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community... these are very very unattractive choices
         
        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community with a much greater intensity than individuality. And community doesn’t exist without children.

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community

        Maybe I just can’t help playing the Devil’s Advocate, but are close-knit communities necessarily all that they’re cracked up to be? I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        • Replies: @Liberty Mike
        Don't you know that you want to go where people know,
        the people are all the same, and
        that you want to go where everybody knows your name?

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us - even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.
        , @Justvisiting

        I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        Close knit communities usually have insane religious and/or cultural beliefs, and enforce them with vigor.

        However, they also tend to have much lower crime rates and are family-friendly.

        They make great neighbors--I just wouldn't want to be under their thumb.
        , @Twinkie

        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or "nomalcy." The "quest for community" as such is not about you per se, but people in general.

        One of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason, I think ) post-modern Americans are so much unhappier than their ancestors is the erosion of community. Barring a few oddball exceptions and malcontents who don't play well with other people (who frequently were exiled or who self-exiled in the past), human beings are social animals and crave community.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.
      118. anon[418] • Disclaimer says:
        @Thomm
        Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don't oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don't mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like 'rotund' become applicable.

        They’re very down on overweight women, usually blaming the Jews of course.

        When Ansari here uses “WN” he is actually just attacking whites in general and using “WN” as cover. You should consider following your own TOS and prohibit these dehumanizing comments. Your forum is a lesser place by allowing this troll to monopolize the top comments. If not, then perhaps you should allow a retort of the same nature.

        Thomm:

        Ladies. That’s a real man’s man. What Thomm wants:

        What Thomm will get, if he’s lucky:

        https://i0.heartyhosting.com/radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/kirstie-alley-weight-loss-new-diet-pp.jpg?resize=792%2C446&ssl=1

        usually blaming the Jews of course

        Deflection. Sometimes blame is deserved. That demographic has done a lot of harm. Sheldon Adelson threatens to “nuke” Iran on behalf of Israel. Adelson is Trump’s largest donor. Surprise, we almost just got a war with Iran. I wonder how that happened? But there’s nothing to see here. I’m sure. Move along. Consume product. Get ready for next product.

      119. @silviosilver
        The concerns about a falling or stagnant population are that a decreasing number of working people will have to support an increasing number of retired people. That at least seems like a valid concern to me. But importing workers to alleviate it only kicks the can down the road, which given all the other problems with immigration, strikes me as a perfectly daft 'solution.' Maybe automation will step in to save the day at just the right moment.

        I don’t think that it would and in that case I would want to keep what we have.
         
        The issue I see with a 'steady state' is that a considerable amount of economic activity only takes place in anticipation of further growth. If that further growth isn't forthcoming, then neither will the investment. In a market economy, I think this would lead to diminishing aggregate production rather than a steady state.

        The concerns about a falling or stagnant population are that a decreasing number of working people will have to support an increasing number of retired people.

        Yes, I mentioned that. It is a valid criticism of the Boomer generation that we have mortgaged our children’s future to avail ourselves of increased SS benefits.

      120. @dfordoom

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community
         
        Maybe I just can't help playing the Devil's Advocate, but are close-knit communities necessarily all that they're cracked up to be? I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        Don’t you know that you want to go where people know,
        the people are all the same, and
        that you want to go where everybody knows your name?

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us – even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us – even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.
         
        I just haven't noticed any desperate strivings by most people to create close-knit communities. If it's part of the human condition it's odd that most people don't seem interested in doing anything about it.

        Maybe not everyone is the same. Maybe some people like close-knit communities. and some don't. My guess is that most don't. They talk about how great it would be to live in close-knit communities, but they don't walk the walk.
      121. The most profound thing president Trump has said during his tenure as chief executive is “the fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive”.

        Trump has deliberately attacked the ability of young White Core Americans to be able to enjoy Affordable Family Formation by encouraging mass legal immigration and by screaming about flooding the USA with mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever” and by refusing to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

        The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire has deliberately attacked young White Core Americans by using mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons to destroy the ability of young White Core Americans to be able to enjoy Affordable Family Formation.

        Mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration combine to increase housing costs, lower wages, increase income inequality, overwhelm hospitals, swamp schools, harm the environment, bring crime and infectious diseases to the USA and make it harder for young White Core Americans to enjoy AFFORDABLE FAMILY FORMATION.

        I wrote this in November of 2019:

        Trump is a baby boomer plutocrat globalizer rich boy liar.

        Trump did tell the truth in 2016 during the presidential campaign about the central banker shysters and the asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate they created with conjured up currency and monetary extremism and asset purchases and quantitative easing and dollar swaps and the like.

        There is no free market nor capitalism nor free enterprise nor anything of the like; there is only central banker shysterism.

        Trump is now touting the massive asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate and he recently talked up negative interest rates at a speech.

        I wrote this in May of 2019:

        Trump the candidate was CORRECTLY talking about asset bubbles and big fat bubbles and he was right. Nothing has changed except the asset bubbles are now phucking even more massive than the NASDAQ tech bubble and the housing bubble and some young guy named Colombo is calling them the everything bubble or the bubblebubble or something.

        Trump is the last of the baby boomer politician whores of the JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire to scream about how great central banker shysterism is. White Americans born after 1965 see the rigged monetary extremism game that benefits globalized billionaires and baby boomers and they are about to pull the plug on civilizationally destructive monetary extremism.

        Remember, the baby boomers were bought off with monetary extremism and three big asset bubbles to keep their greedy mouths shut about nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. The ECB has done the same thing in the eurozone and the Chinese and the Japanese have made central banker shysterism a big hit for their plutocrats and money-grubbers too.

        Trump Tells the Truth About Big Fat Phucking Asset Bubbles Created By The Privately-Controlled Federal Reserve Bank(2016):

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-green-card-staple/#comment-3559935

        This Viking guy has something to say about asset bubbles and globalized central banks:

        QE is Quantitative Easing and QT is Quantitative Tightening

      122. @Lars Porsena
        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        And even if you eat prepared foods, have you seen portion sizes on TV diners and the like? Usually around 400-500 calories, which means you can be eating 5 of those a day.

        I'd say this 'food desert' nonsense is nonsense. You don't need to eat dolphin-free fair trade arugula from Whole Foods to lose weight.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/

        I put in the zip code 26508 for West Virginia. I don't notice any difference to what they offer in Chicago really. Featured items and best sellers are the same.

        https://grocery.walmart.com/products?aisle=1255027787131_1255027789453

        better local food options
         
        What does this mean? Heirloom tomatoes? I will grant you that local heirloom tomatoes are flat out better than the leathery flavorless mushy crap they sell at supermarkets but I doubt there is a significant caloric difference.

        For me, (South side of Chicago) "local food options" means gyros, beef sandwiches, beef sandwiches with sausages on it, sausage sandwiches and hot dogs, BBQ ribs, pizza, pasta, and pork chops the size of your head. Plus mexican food.

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.

        Precisely. I know of any number of things you can do with cabbage, ranging from cole slaw, sauerkraut, kimchi, stir fries, stuffed cabbage to curry. And it’s all on Youtube. People who complain about food deserts aren’t using the principal resources available to them – the internet (at the library if they can’t afford the cheapo home internet service available for $9.95 a month to indigents https://www.internetessentials.com/ ) and their noggins.

        • Replies: @Lars Porsena
        Kapusniak! With spare ribs.

        Eastern European restaurants typically feature 87 different ways to prepare cabbage.
        , @Alden
        There are a lot of misogynist women hating men on UNZ constantly ranting that women don’t cook for their families b cause they have jobs.

        This thread is an excellent example. It’s very obvious to me that the men who claim women and their live on fast food have never shopped for food or cooked a dinner for one in their lives.

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.

        Here’s a good meal for a family that can be fixed in about 25 minutes. No boxed or prepared foods.

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.

        Serve a 20-25 minute dinner.

        Even faster. 15 minutes or less

        Night before take container of homemade spaghetti bolognese sauce out of freezer. Bolognese is mostly meat, not tomato sauce.

        Come home enter kitchen. Put pot of water to boil. Put thawed bolognese sauce in pan turn on heat stir occasionally. Chop up lettuce add tomatoes cucumber carrots or not. Pour oil vinegar salt & pepper bottom of bowl. Put lettuce etc in bowl. Stir around.

        Drain noodles pour on bolognese sauce. If husband and kids demand garlic bread let them make it.

        When oldest kid is 12 youngest 10

        Come home enter kitchen. Set table help kids serve the meal they cooked. Kids love to cook and they’d much rather cook dinner than do dishes.

        But women haters who don’t food shop or cook don’t realize how fast and easy it is because they don’t do it and don’t know how.

        So they believe women feed their families nothing but fast food. They also seem to believe that husbands don’t participate in food shopping cooking and getting meals on the table.
      123. Americans of European Christian ancestry are getting as fat as a house and they are being bought off with big fat asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate and by massive government borrowing and spending.

        The White Core American brain-dead peasants are eating like bastards and as their belly weight and body fat increase so too does the big fat asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate.

        I am at about an ideal weight, having shed a few pounds recently, and the problem I see is lack of exercise combined with an inability to FAST like the Pagans and Christians and cavemen did. Eat like a hog but go 12 or 18 hours without any calories, including beer or soda or any other calories. Don’t do this if you have blood sugar problems, but an apple might help to get you through the fast if you got blood sugar problems.

        Those of us who have been blessed by God and genetic ancestry with good metabolism shouldn’t refer to our fellow Americans as waddling walruses or fat pigs or over-fed hogs at the trough.

        A lot of voters are fat slobs and that Biden guy said something to a voter in Iowa that could be interpreted as calling a voter a fat slob. That’s a politician NO-NO. Another hint for aspiring politicians is to not skimp on the ice cream at an ice cream social just because you think the voter hogs have had enough.

        Young White Core Americans will lean out like bastards when the current asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate implode. All of a sudden you’ll see White Core Americans look like they did in pictures from 50 or a hundred years or so ago when most people were regular weight and the fat guy was a rarity.

        I see the connection between FATSO AMERICA and ASSET BUBBLE AMERICA just like the connection between who has the control of the propaganda apparatus in the USA and the constant attacks on Americans of European Christian ancestry and the historic American nation.

        Binyamin Applebaum in New York Times 2016:

        Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, said that Janet L. Yellen, the Fed’s chairwoman, was “doing political things” by holding interest rates at low levels. He said that the American economy was in a “big, fat, ugly bubble” that would pop when the Fed started raising rates. Ms. Yellen, he said, was waiting until President Obama left office.

        https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/us/politics/donald-trump-janet-yellen-federal-reserve.html

        Since 2016 the BIG FAT UGLY ASSET BUBBLES have gotten many many more times more massive and the Federal Reserve Bank has begun a massive expansion of its balance sheet and the Fed has lowered the federal funds rate below 2 percent.

        Some of our fellow Americans, who we cherish and love, are, indeed, to be blunt, big fat ugly bastards; but so are the asset bubbles in stocks and bonds and real estate that are being used to buy off the baby boomers and other money-grubbing slobs.

      124. @dfordoom

        I’m always puzzled when people suggest denying women an education to boost the birthrates, since a much more direct, fair, and effective approach would be to simply ban birth control.
         
        Are you actually advocating banning birth control? Wouldn't banning birth control be an infringement of women's rights? It would mean forcing women to have children against their will. I can't see that ending well, for anybody.

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.

        It's also possible that it's not just the case that highly educated women want fewer children. It may be that highly educated men want fewer children as well. Maybe it's not education for women that causes birth rates to plummet, but too much education in general.

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies, and education (indoctrination) is essential to being part of today’s elite.  This appears to be why we have so many people in higher ed who want to go to work for non-profits rather than being doctors or entrepreneurs; there’s no room for them anywhere else.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies
         
        I think that's almost certainly true.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.
         
        Yes. And also requiring people to give a valid reason for needing a university education would help.

        Valid reasons would be something like an intention to become a doctor or an engineer. Valid reasons would not include wanting to do a major in Gender Studies or Film Studies.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Charles Murray suggests higher education has utility for about 10% of the population. Assuming a mean population IQ of 98, the threshold would be about 115.
      125. @Hail
        Thank God we had MAGA come along to reverse each and every one of those trends.
        .

        Oh,

        What's that you say?

        No real progress on reversing any of them, after three years?
        .

        Damn.

        ________

        Another knockout Tucker Carlson monologue, Jan. 20, 2020:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eR1Pm7ANLw

        "The candidate who makes it easier for 30 year olds to get married & have kids will win the election, and will deserve to win. Remember that."
         

        Its pretty hilarious that “the Left” has climbed so far up their own intersectional asses that it takes a Conservative Fox News commentator to point out the obvious.

      126. @Johann Ricke

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Precisely. I know of any number of things you can do with cabbage, ranging from cole slaw, sauerkraut, kimchi, stir fries, stuffed cabbage to curry. And it's all on Youtube. People who complain about food deserts aren't using the principal resources available to them - the internet (at the library if they can't afford the cheapo home internet service available for $9.95 a month to indigents https://www.internetessentials.com/ ) and their noggins.

        Kapusniak! With spare ribs.

        Eastern European restaurants typically feature 87 different ways to prepare cabbage.

        • Thanks: Johann Ricke
      127. @res
        Agreed. One of the things I dislike about California. I think supply and demand has a lot to do with that. Many people with disposable cash in CA making an effort to eat well. Plus. farmers markets (etc.) are trendy.

        But not everywhere is like that. One thing that helps is if you are in an area where the farmer can run an honor system (unstaffed) stand. Another thing that helps is being in an area with a lower cost of living for the farmer.

        The fruit on the farm stands comes from the farmer’s fruit trees. Those are the same brands of fruit he sells to the supermarket. It’s the same fruit, whether the farmer sells it to a huge wholesaler, puts it in his farm stand or brings it to a trendy farmers market.

        For decent fruit, start with the saplings of the old fashioned forgotten brands of fruit. Seed savers and other sources sell the trees that produce sweet tasty fruit.

        I believe some farmers are going back to the sweet tasting fruit brand trees.

        • Replies: @Bill
        Is the fruit picked from the tree at the same level of un-ripeness for the store and the roadside stand?
        , @res
        But are the same farmers selling at fruit stands and Walmart? I imagine some do. Especially in the industrial agriculture heartland of California which is what I think you are basing your comments on.

        In other parts of the country I am not sure that is the case. Not all farms deal in Walmart scale production. My experience in larger East Coast supermarkets is that you are as likely as not to see produce (even in season of types which can be grown locally) from CA rather than nearby. Perhaps I am misremembering or my experience is out of date though?

        P.S. And Bill makes a good point about ripeness at picking. Having the additional time and wear to ship to the store may also affect which varieties are sold.
      128. @dfordoom

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been.
         
        Everyone believes that, but is it true?

        In England during Victorian times the urban working classes were notoriously puny and unhealthy. When the Empire suddenly needed cannon fodder in 1914 they found that many working class recruits had to be rejected on the grounds of physical unfitness. They weren't fat but they were arguably in worse physical condition than even overweight modern Americans. The Victorian working classes were also noted for being much shorter than the middle and upper classes.

        Modern Americans may be the fattest people in history, but they're not necessarily the most unhealthy.

        It’s false for other reasons as well. When digging a ditch involved a shovel, it was easy to stay in shape. You did nothing and stayed in shape. Now that digging a ditch involves sitting on your ass in the cab of a backhoe, it is exceedingly hard to stay in shape. You have to actually do something.

        Even people in apparently sedentary jobs had to do things like walking up and down steps, walking to the bus/subway stop, etc. Now you ride the elevator down to the garage at work and drive your car to your (attached) garage at home.

      129. @Twinkie
        Traveling for instant novelty and photo-ops might have become cheap, but the old upperclass style tours of a region (which often took weeks and months) are still costly.

        I always tell people that I hate traveling, but enjoy living in other countries and studying their peoples, histories, and cultures... and killing them. That always shuts down the inane “When I went to India... “ or “When I was in Africa for a week-long medical mission...” type of conversations.

        In the UK it’s a thing for schools or adult individuals to sign up for a week ‘working’ in a Thai orphanage or a Zambian school. I think some of these “orphanages” are actually businesses where the kids aren’t even orphans.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2418074/Fake-orphanages-Bogus-animal-sanctuaries-And-crooks-growing-rich-Western-gullibility–gooding-gap-year-holidays-horrifyingly-callous-con.html

        It’s sort-of impressive – these people have discovered how to monetise Western virtue-signalling just as well as any advertiser promoting the new Green agendas of some megacompany.

      130. @Johann Ricke

        Walmart sells fruit and vegetables and all manner of raw ingredients. You are not forced to eat the prepared foods.
         
        Precisely. I know of any number of things you can do with cabbage, ranging from cole slaw, sauerkraut, kimchi, stir fries, stuffed cabbage to curry. And it's all on Youtube. People who complain about food deserts aren't using the principal resources available to them - the internet (at the library if they can't afford the cheapo home internet service available for $9.95 a month to indigents https://www.internetessentials.com/ ) and their noggins.

        There are a lot of misogynist women hating men on UNZ constantly ranting that women don’t cook for their families b cause they have jobs.

        This thread is an excellent example. It’s very obvious to me that the men who claim women and their live on fast food have never shopped for food or cooked a dinner for one in their lives.

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.

        Here’s a good meal for a family that can be fixed in about 25 minutes. No boxed or prepared foods.

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.

        Serve a 20-25 minute dinner.

        Even faster. 15 minutes or less

        Night before take container of homemade spaghetti bolognese sauce out of freezer. Bolognese is mostly meat, not tomato sauce.

        Come home enter kitchen. Put pot of water to boil. Put thawed bolognese sauce in pan turn on heat stir occasionally. Chop up lettuce add tomatoes cucumber carrots or not. Pour oil vinegar salt & pepper bottom of bowl. Put lettuce etc in bowl. Stir around.

        Drain noodles pour on bolognese sauce. If husband and kids demand garlic bread let them make it.

        When oldest kid is 12 youngest 10

        Come home enter kitchen. Set table help kids serve the meal they cooked. Kids love to cook and they’d much rather cook dinner than do dishes.

        But women haters who don’t food shop or cook don’t realize how fast and easy it is because they don’t do it and don’t know how.

        So they believe women feed their families nothing but fast food. They also seem to believe that husbands don’t participate in food shopping cooking and getting meals on the table.

        • Thanks: Johann Ricke
        • Replies: @Rosie

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.
         
        This sounds delicious. The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it. I could easily spend all day in the kitchen, and will happily do it when I have time as well as a crowd to feed. Alas, even as a SAHM, I normally don't have that. I compromise more than I used to. If I didn't, there would be no time for anything else.

        And of course, there are some things that are just better to buy. Pesto sauce costs a fortune to make, and my whole family loves it, so that is one of the things I just buy, and that's a quick meal when I need it.

        You're quite right about the frying pan, too. If you don't know how to cook with stainless steel, you don't know how to cook. If you can saute a piece of meat and make a pan sauce, you can always get dinner on the table quickly.
        , @Anonymous

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.
         
        Preparing meals is time-consuming, but not that time-consuming. Mainly, you need to be in the habit of shopping for good food ingredients, preparing and cooking meals -- and cleaning up as you go, so that your kitchen is just as spic-and-span when you finish as when you started.
        Also, a lot of people don't realize just what you can do without much effort to produce really excellent meals.
        For example, you mentioned making biscuits using margarine. I never use margarine. I use butter -- butter that I make myself. When I mention to people that I make my own butter, they say, "Oh, get out of here! how can you do that?" But it's so easy! Beat cream in a food processor and within minutes you have buttermilk and butter. Strain out the buttermilk and thoroughly rinse the butter, add salt to taste (and to preserve the butter). That's it. You can make your butter while you are doing other things. And of course now you can make buttermilk biscuits, too!
        While I'm making the butter and biscuits, if I am preparing breakfast -- for example, omelets -- I dice potatoes, onions, a bit of fresh garlic, green and red peppers, a carrot, and a jalapeño (for zest), fry them, squeeze fresh Valencias for orange juice, grind the coffee beans for siphon coffee, get that going. Then a minute to whip the eggs and make the omelets, and -- voilà! -- breakfast so good nobody leaves a scrap for the dog. How long did it take? Half an hour, maybe less.
        Oh, and I use cast iron cookware handed down the generations.
        Second Oh -- my grandmother disdained using butter for biscuits, preferring lard, which she also used to make the most light and flaky pie crusts.
        A lot of times people will say to me that they don't have an extra half an hour in the morning because they are too busy, but I say, well, get up a half an hour earlier!
        The only time I didn't have enough time to prepare proper meals, even just for myself, was when I was interning and had a 30-hour on, 10-hour off schedule. Then I ate fast food I picked up on the way home and fell asleep while eating, so I know sometimes you just really can't make a nice meal. But that's always only a temporary situation.
        There are many things you can't have in this world, but you can always have excellent meals, as good as at the finest restaurant -- better! -- if you have your own kitchen and do your own shopping and meal preparation.
      131. @SafeNow
        Here in California, I asked a slim (redundancy) Asian-American gal what her favorite food is, and she replied “vegetables.” That is one solution to the epidemic. The second solution was discovered decades ago by a nutritionist named Rena Wing. It is to run, walk, shuffle, whatever, but somehow traverse, 26 miles per week. Not merely park in the farthest parking space; 26 miles; sorry overweight doc, it is not park in the farthest parking space.

        Vegetables are carbs and all carbs turn into glucose (sugars) by the time they get through the intestines into the blood stream. That’s the theory behind the high protein diets

        • Replies: @Lars Porsena
        Vegetables are barely any digestible carbs, mostly fiber.

        If you eat raw vegetables all day long you will still starve to death. You don't get enough calories from just vegetables to even survive. The only exceptions to this are grains, nuts, and legumes (all of which are technically fruiting bodies).
      132. @Alden
        The fruit on the farm stands comes from the farmer’s fruit trees. Those are the same brands of fruit he sells to the supermarket. It’s the same fruit, whether the farmer sells it to a huge wholesaler, puts it in his farm stand or brings it to a trendy farmers market.

        For decent fruit, start with the saplings of the old fashioned forgotten brands of fruit. Seed savers and other sources sell the trees that produce sweet tasty fruit.

        I believe some farmers are going back to the sweet tasting fruit brand trees.

        Is the fruit picked from the tree at the same level of un-ripeness for the store and the roadside stand?

      133. @Alden
        Vegetables are carbs and all carbs turn into glucose (sugars) by the time they get through the intestines into the blood stream. That’s the theory behind the high protein diets

        Vegetables are barely any digestible carbs, mostly fiber.

        If you eat raw vegetables all day long you will still starve to death. You don’t get enough calories from just vegetables to even survive. The only exceptions to this are grains, nuts, and legumes (all of which are technically fruiting bodies).

        • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
        • Replies: @SafeNow
        Of course. But the idea is that vegetables are “big food.” Satiety. Therefore, you eat less of non-vegetable food. This “big food” phenomenon has been studied, e.g., stew vs. same stew +water, turning it into a soup, resulting in eating less.
      134. “Vegetables are carbs and all carbs turn into glucose (sugars) by the time they get through the intestines into the blood stream.”

        hmmmm . . . but there is the body that consumes what natural carbs that will nor reside on the body as processed carbs.

        The past week, I have indulged in fruit juices and my body can really tell the difference. Bot all carbs are unhealthy.

      135. @dfordoom

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community
         
        Maybe I just can't help playing the Devil's Advocate, but are close-knit communities necessarily all that they're cracked up to be? I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        Close knit communities usually have insane religious and/or cultural beliefs, and enforce them with vigor.

        However, they also tend to have much lower crime rates and are family-friendly.

        They make great neighbors–I just wouldn’t want to be under their thumb.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Close knit communities usually have insane religious and/or cultural beliefs, and enforce them with vigor.

        However, they also tend to have much lower crime rates and are family-friendly.

        They make great neighbors–I just wouldn’t want to be under their thumb.
         
        They're probably great for people who like that sort of thing. I don't particularly want someone else's religious and/or cultural beliefs enforced upon me with vigour.

        One of the reasons people head to big cities is to get away from close-knit communities.

        So on balance I'll give close-knit communities a miss.
      136. @Alden
        The fruit on the farm stands comes from the farmer’s fruit trees. Those are the same brands of fruit he sells to the supermarket. It’s the same fruit, whether the farmer sells it to a huge wholesaler, puts it in his farm stand or brings it to a trendy farmers market.

        For decent fruit, start with the saplings of the old fashioned forgotten brands of fruit. Seed savers and other sources sell the trees that produce sweet tasty fruit.

        I believe some farmers are going back to the sweet tasting fruit brand trees.

        But are the same farmers selling at fruit stands and Walmart? I imagine some do. Especially in the industrial agriculture heartland of California which is what I think you are basing your comments on.

        In other parts of the country I am not sure that is the case. Not all farms deal in Walmart scale production. My experience in larger East Coast supermarkets is that you are as likely as not to see produce (even in season of types which can be grown locally) from CA rather than nearby. Perhaps I am misremembering or my experience is out of date though?

        P.S. And Bill makes a good point about ripeness at picking. Having the additional time and wear to ship to the store may also affect which varieties are sold.

        • Replies: @Sparkon
        Yes, many of the fruit and vegetable varieties available in bigger markets like Von's, Kroger, Albertson's, and Walmart have been bred as much for their durability as for their taste. It doesn't matter how good it tastes if it goes bad before you can sell it.

        Some fruits and vegetables from local markets might find their way into a Walmart, but I doubt it. They are buying and shipping from large operations that can fill big orders promptly and completely.

        The small farmer is not as concerned about durability since he isn't shipping cross country, so he may indeed have better tasting varieties available at his roadside stand, than what you can buy in a big market.

        Bananas commonly available now get ripe while they still have green on their skins, seemingly during the time I'm driving home with them. I worked in grocery stores as a teenager back in the early '60s, and all the fruit seemed juicier and sweeter than what we get now.

        Something like the women, I guess.
      137. @JohnPlywood
        Infirm cucks such as yourself are the problem. Just KYS.

        LOL. I’m glad to know that *I* am the problem.

      138. @res
        But are the same farmers selling at fruit stands and Walmart? I imagine some do. Especially in the industrial agriculture heartland of California which is what I think you are basing your comments on.

        In other parts of the country I am not sure that is the case. Not all farms deal in Walmart scale production. My experience in larger East Coast supermarkets is that you are as likely as not to see produce (even in season of types which can be grown locally) from CA rather than nearby. Perhaps I am misremembering or my experience is out of date though?

        P.S. And Bill makes a good point about ripeness at picking. Having the additional time and wear to ship to the store may also affect which varieties are sold.

        Yes, many of the fruit and vegetable varieties available in bigger markets like Von’s, Kroger, Albertson’s, and Walmart have been bred as much for their durability as for their taste. It doesn’t matter how good it tastes if it goes bad before you can sell it.

        Some fruits and vegetables from local markets might find their way into a Walmart, but I doubt it. They are buying and shipping from large operations that can fill big orders promptly and completely.

        The small farmer is not as concerned about durability since he isn’t shipping cross country, so he may indeed have better tasting varieties available at his roadside stand, than what you can buy in a big market.

        Bananas commonly available now get ripe while they still have green on their skins, seemingly during the time I’m driving home with them. I worked in grocery stores as a teenager back in the early ’60s, and all the fruit seemed juicier and sweeter than what we get now.

        Something like the women, I guess.

      139. @dfordoom


        “It is low now, not because of a lack of will to survive , but because massive third-world migration has made it ever harder to support a family.”
         
        And I think there might be real problems with this formula. The reason a person might not have kids is just the opposite. They don’t want to make that life sacrifice, They prefer their single or nonchild existence — because without children they survive quite well as is their quality of life.
         
        Agreed. The idea that declining fertility is caused by immigration is complete nonsense.

        The unpleasant truth is that as individuals we are better off with one child, or none. As long as we think and behave as individuals fertility rates will remain very very low.

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) - these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.

        The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice.

        None of this has anything to do with immigration which is merely a response (and from their point of view a rational response even if it's thoroughly evil from society's point of view) by capitalists to the thing they most fear, which is that markets will cease to grow and corporate profits will therefore cease to grow. Immigration is the result of declining fertility rates, not the cause.

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) – these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.

        The paragraph treats the view that “our individuality” is the highest value as the default assumption which can only be overcome by “some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment.” Obviously, the view that “our individuality” is the highest value is, itself, a very deep religious or ideological commitment. The people who called this commitment into being and spread it throughout the West knew that.

        Really, what you are saying is that “the Enlightenment” is an evolutionarily dysfunctional thing, that it is contrary to natural law, that it is destined to die. From your lips to God’s ear.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        The paragraph treats the view that “our individuality” is the highest value as the default assumption which can only be overcome by “some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment.”
         
        I don't think it's the default assumption for humanity. People are different. Societies are different. There have always been tensions between individualism and what might be called communitarianism. In some societies communitarianism is overwhelmingly the dominant assumption and if you don't like it life can be made very unpleasant for you. In other societies (such as the modern West) individualism has become the dominant assumption.

        Obviously, the view that “our individuality” is the highest value is, itself, a very deep religious or ideological commitment. The people who called this commitment into being and spread it throughout the West knew that.
         
        I'm not sure it's dependent on religious or ideological commitment. To some extent it is, but to some extent it seems to be what people chose when they have a choice. It was spread throughout the West mostly by capitalism, industrialisation and urbanisation - not really by some sinister group of conspirators.

        Where we really differ is that I think it's a valid choice. You might not like that choice, you might intensely dislike that choice, but you can't tell other people that it's not a valid choice for them.

        As long as people are prepared to be law-abiding and to accept basic social responsibilities (like paying their taxes) I don't see any reason to pressure them into abandoning individualism if that's the optimum choice for them.

        Of course it can be pushed to an extreme, which is what libertarians do. Then you get chaos and nihilism. Just as communitarianism can be pushed to an extreme (in which case you get either secular or religious totalitarianism). I think it can be argued that the modern West has pushed individualism too far, but if the alternative seems to be secular or religious totalitarianism then it's perfectly valid and rational for people to prefer individualism.

        The trouble with humans is that we swing between extremes. We either prefer extremism to moderation, or possibly it's the case that small groups who advocate extremist solutions are more effective in pushing their agendas and the moderates end up getting crushed or marginalised.
      140. @Toronto Russian
        I've recently read a lot of articles on Israeli family life, authors ranging from non-Jews who got there through marriage to an actual Haredi guy (their religion doesn't allow them to watch television but allows to use computers, and there is such thing as Kosher Internet). The takeaway is they don't achieve high fertility by heroically overcoming discomfort, but collectively make childrearing as comfortable as possible.

        The Haredi community will always watch over your kids if you need to go somewhere, or you can take them to your workplace (many women go to work to support their husbands who study the Torah all day) and you don't end up stuck at home for years. There's a lot of sharing/free renting of stuff. Fathers do not see walking with strollers and hands-on care of little kids as below them or unmanly. As a result, female life expectancy is 85.6 years - 1.5 years higher than of non-Haredi women with the same socioeconomic status. Having 7 kids is hard work, but for them it is eased enough to not wear down their bodies at a fast pace. For men it's 3 years higher, so they also get the good end of the deal.

        Secular men do childcare and housework, to great excitement of Slavic Russian wives who aren't used to such behaviour of fathers at all (most common number of children in the families of those Russian "patriarchs": 1). The local community watches the kids as they play outdoors (if parents are supervising a child themselves they're usually newcomers or tourists), the culture doesn't demand of mothers to keep them always clean and well-behaved. Girls aren't shoved into marriage and motherhood in their teens (no they don't marry at 18 to avoid the army - it's an important instrument of socialization, and there's always alternative service for those who wish), but marry around 30 and try to give birth to 3 kids as quickly as possible (the William and Kate model so to say). The average age at first marriage is low because the Haredi pull it down.

        That's basically it. Oh, and having 3 kids is Just What's Done, and friends and relatives will pester a new married couple about it incessantly (but - it's important - without any negativity or aggression that could provoke resistance). In the sphere of government social support for families, everything is quite boring and ordinary like in other developed countries.

        People say similar things about St Marys, Kansas which is a town taken over by traditionalist Catholics.

      141. @Alden
        There are a lot of misogynist women hating men on UNZ constantly ranting that women don’t cook for their families b cause they have jobs.

        This thread is an excellent example. It’s very obvious to me that the men who claim women and their live on fast food have never shopped for food or cooked a dinner for one in their lives.

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.

        Here’s a good meal for a family that can be fixed in about 25 minutes. No boxed or prepared foods.

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.

        Serve a 20-25 minute dinner.

        Even faster. 15 minutes or less

        Night before take container of homemade spaghetti bolognese sauce out of freezer. Bolognese is mostly meat, not tomato sauce.

        Come home enter kitchen. Put pot of water to boil. Put thawed bolognese sauce in pan turn on heat stir occasionally. Chop up lettuce add tomatoes cucumber carrots or not. Pour oil vinegar salt & pepper bottom of bowl. Put lettuce etc in bowl. Stir around.

        Drain noodles pour on bolognese sauce. If husband and kids demand garlic bread let them make it.

        When oldest kid is 12 youngest 10

        Come home enter kitchen. Set table help kids serve the meal they cooked. Kids love to cook and they’d much rather cook dinner than do dishes.

        But women haters who don’t food shop or cook don’t realize how fast and easy it is because they don’t do it and don’t know how.

        So they believe women feed their families nothing but fast food. They also seem to believe that husbands don’t participate in food shopping cooking and getting meals on the table.

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.

        This sounds delicious. The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it. I could easily spend all day in the kitchen, and will happily do it when I have time as well as a crowd to feed. Alas, even as a SAHM, I normally don’t have that. I compromise more than I used to. If I didn’t, there would be no time for anything else.

        And of course, there are some things that are just better to buy. Pesto sauce costs a fortune to make, and my whole family loves it, so that is one of the things I just buy, and that’s a quick meal when I need it.

        You’re quite right about the frying pan, too. If you don’t know how to cook with stainless steel, you don’t know how to cook. If you can saute a piece of meat and make a pan sauce, you can always get dinner on the table quickly.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it.
         
        I think that's very true. Preparing a meal is an activity that takes between five minutes and six hours.

        I can cook properly if I'm motivated and energetic enough to do so. These days I find that I need the motivation and energy for other activities.

        The important thing is not to make food preparation a moral issue. People whose idea of food preparation is "pierce film in two places and microwave on High for three minutes" or ordering a home delivery pizza are not, contrary to what some people here seem to think, morally inferior to people who spend hours toiling in the kitchen.
      142. @dfordoom

        Hence, there corporations think it’s “efficient” to make things on the other side of the world and ship them here to sell.
         
        A lot of our problems stem from the fact that we're not forcing capitalism to serve society. We've allowed society to be made to serve capitalism.

        Capitalism might possibly be a good servant but it's a terrible master.

        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?
         
        The Chinese are making the attempt to force capitalism to serve society.

        Western European states from 1945 until roughly the end of the 20th century seemed to be doing at least a moderately successful job of forcing capitalism to serve society.

        It helps if the capitalists know that if they step out of line the government will come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks.

        And lots of things can ameliorate the worst effects of capitalism. Things like the welfare state.

        What you need is to get rid of corrupt systems like the US system where capitalists can buy politicians the same way you buy a whore on a street corner.
        , @Intelligent Dasein
        Just for the record, I've already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938
      143. @MikeatMikedotMike
        I had planned to reply to this comment a few days ago, but forgot.

        "Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification."

        First, China isn't a good example because they had a state mandated 1 child policy for 35 years. While it was likely impossible to enforce comprehensively, that by itself was enough to drive down total fertility. Perhaps I'm wrong but Japan seems to have come under quite a bit of Western influence since WWII, and they have quite a pornography following and also practice abortion (although neither to the extent of the US)

        Secondly, low fertility in other parts of the world does not disprove subversive influences in the West. I know little about Iran other than I don't want to go to war with them, but their low fertility doesn't somehow disprove the subversive efforts in the West.

        "The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever."

        Again, the second sentence doesn't prove the first, or even relate to it at all. Off the point, but I am curious to read about how sexualized imagery is supposed to assist in preventing obesity, seeing as most of us here are in agreement that ubiquitous sexual imagery has almost nothing but a negative effect upon people who consume it.

        To AE:

        "Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. "

        With instant access to information via the internet, it has never been easier to optimize one's life in all sorts of ways. Specific to fitness, for most people an hour of exercise doesn't offset the ill effects of remaining sedentary for 8-12 hours a day. Most of the fitness industry is comprised of "get fit quick" fads and supplement scams. We have also been lied to about what is to be considered correct nutrition via the ridiculous "food pyramid," the vilification of animal fats, and steered into a detrimental dependency upon carbohydrate based foods, which we are finally coming to realize are the cause of a great many serious health problems. I guess your point was to provide an example of how subversive efforts are overstated? 100 years ago (((clever))) marketers were able to convince people that smoking was healthy in general and enhanced femininity for women specifically. Oops!

      144. @Liberty Mike
        Don't you know that you want to go where people know,
        the people are all the same, and
        that you want to go where everybody knows your name?

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us - even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us – even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.

        I just haven’t noticed any desperate strivings by most people to create close-knit communities. If it’s part of the human condition it’s odd that most people don’t seem interested in doing anything about it.

        Maybe not everyone is the same. Maybe some people like close-knit communities. and some don’t. My guess is that most don’t. They talk about how great it would be to live in close-knit communities, but they don’t walk the walk.

        • Replies: @Liberty Mike
        Perhaps we are writing past each other.

        I did not define close-knit community or assumed any particular definition.

        My post was a riff on what I think is a broad, general desire of most human beings to be around kith and kin. Hence, my allusion to the lyrics of Cheers, the music of which I posit has an undeniable catchy hook.
      145. @Alden
        I doubt poor people eat fast food all the time. I see those KFC chicken dinner for 4 ads all the time. $20.99 plus tax, $22.00. The meat is legs and thighs with bone and skin. 8 ounces mashed potatoes 8 ounces coleslaw 2 corn cobs cut in half 4 biscuits.

        5 people for dinner tonight, 2 teens, 3 adults.

        I’ve got a package of 6 large boneless skinless chicken breasts thawing right now. All meat, no waste$7.00. Mashed potatoes will come from a 10 pound bag, the only size she buys. $5.00 for a 10 pound bag russets. 5 russets from that bag maybe $1.50. Half a cabbage, 2 grated carrots couple blobs of mayonnaise. $1.50. Can of corn $2.00.

        So I’m feeding 5 a chicken dinner for $12.00 instead of 4 for $22.00. 4 biscuits would cost about 75 cents to make 1 cup of flour 1/2 tsp baking powder blob of margarine , water.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that children can fix snacks at age 7 and cook about age 10-12. Nothing to prevent the kids from peeling and cutting up potatoes making salad and getting dinner going when they come home from school is there?

        People who have teens tell me those cooking shows inspire the kids to cook dinner. They come from school hungry fix a snack and turn on the TV. A cooking show comes on. They realize they’ve got the ingredients and start cooking.

        Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize is that women often make a big pot of spaghetti sauce chili pot roast curry mashed potatoes rice max&cheese enough for 3 meals and all it needs is heating up.

        Also depends on the age of the kids. If all 3 are under 7 they’d eat half a chicken breast, a generous tablespoon of potatoes coleslaw and corn. So subtract $3.50 for the chicken $2.50 for the potatoes corn and coleslaw,

        If the kids were 11 and older they’d eat the whole meal homemade for $12.00 instead of $22.00

        Many poor single moms with 3 kids are on complete welfare don’t work and have plenty of time to cook. Even if they work, they get food stamps. Food stamps can’t be spent on prepared food. The cash part of the welfare can be spent on restaurant food but they need the cash for utilities rent etc.

        You can feed 4 people bacon eggs and toast every day for a week for the cost of 4 egg Mac muffins breakfasts for one day.

        “Another thing middleaged childless men don’t realize…”

        As a young childless man I’d cook a big load of assorted vegetables, go out and buy the hottest vegetable curry my local Indian sold (a ‘phal’, I think it’s a UK thing, hotter than vindaloo), stir that in and have five days supply of veg curry, a limited but healthy diet.

      146. @Mr. Rational

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.
         
        I've seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies, and education (indoctrination) is essential to being part of today's elite.  This appears to be why we have so many people in higher ed who want to go to work for non-profits rather than being doctors or entrepreneurs; there's no room for them anywhere else.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies

        I think that’s almost certainly true.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.

        Yes. And also requiring people to give a valid reason for needing a university education would help.

        Valid reasons would be something like an intention to become a doctor or an engineer. Valid reasons would not include wanting to do a major in Gender Studies or Film Studies.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Good grief. You don't really have any business telling people what they can and can't study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that's another story. I don't know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people's history and culture. It's certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.
        , @Mr. Rational

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Or tell the people who want to go into Gender Studies that they're not eligible for guaranteed student loans and have to either find private money or pay their own way.  Universities will react VERY quickly to the cratering number of enrollees.

        Weed-out courses would come back with a vengeance, removing the students who can't hack it before they have mortgaged their whole lives.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        The libertarian answer to that, which I'm partial to, is that absent government subsidy, the market would figure it out in the form of wages. Engineers would be able to earn them, gender studies majors would not be able to--at least not when there is such an enormous oversupply of them for the very limited demand they serve.
      147. @dfordoom

        It is part of the human condition, and it resonates in all of us – even those of us who are anarcho-free enterprise-individualists.
         
        I just haven't noticed any desperate strivings by most people to create close-knit communities. If it's part of the human condition it's odd that most people don't seem interested in doing anything about it.

        Maybe not everyone is the same. Maybe some people like close-knit communities. and some don't. My guess is that most don't. They talk about how great it would be to live in close-knit communities, but they don't walk the walk.

        Perhaps we are writing past each other.

        I did not define close-knit community or assumed any particular definition.

        My post was a riff on what I think is a broad, general desire of most human beings to be around kith and kin. Hence, my allusion to the lyrics of Cheers, the music of which I posit has an undeniable catchy hook.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Perhaps we are writing past each other.
         
        Yes, I think we probably are.

        I did not define close-knit community or assumed any particular definition.

        My post was a riff on what I think is a broad, general desire of most human beings to be around kith and kin.
         
        Your point about definitions is quite valid. A close-knit community can be a neighbourhood in which people get on well with their neighbours, help them out occasionally, maybe baby-sit their kids from time to time, but don't interfere in each other's lives.

        Or a close-knit community can be a stifling and oppressive situation in which everyone wants to tell everyone else how to live.

        I personally probably wouldn't choose either but I can see the attractions of the former.
      148. Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

        Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low
        Exercising reproductive freedom is a good thing.

        It is a cause for celebration, and I say that as a confirmed neo-reactionary. Quite a bit of our social degeneracy can be traced back to parents who have neither the ability nor, really, the desire for raising children. But they feel they have to anyway: after all, doesn’t everyone need parenthood to be fulfilled?

        Why should we celebrate freedom in other areas of personal life but proclaim it odious when it comes to reproduction?

        Personal issues aside, overpopulation adds extra weight to environmental problems. The idea that the number of people struggling for a decent life must be ever growing is foolish.

      149. @Thomm
        Keep in mind that there are two categories of men that don't oppose, if not outright prefer, female obesity :

        i) Blacks (not mulattos, but full blacks).
        ii) WNs (the straight ones, at least), i.e. the bottom 20% of white men.

        The obesity epidemic has only affected the prospects of men with standards. Their loss is the gain for the two groups mentioned above, where women are becoming closer to their ideal by becoming fatter. I don't mean just 20 pound overweight, I mean a level at which adjectives like 'rotund' become applicable.

        Thomm, my deepest apologies that one of my brother pale-penis-people saddled up and rode your girlfriend. We’re the best and some girls just have to have a taste.

        My sincere advice: get over it! There are plenty of fish in the sea. Millions of attractive young women enter the market every year. Work on being a better–and less silly and petulant–you.

        • Replies: @Thomm
        Heh. Your comment reveals more about yourself than you know.

        Most WNs on this thread are gay. You are among the few that are not gay, but you are definitely a fat fetishist, given your reaction to my very benign, fact-based comment.

        Oh, and I am pretty sure you know I am a white guy. Imagining I am an Arab, South Asian, or Jew is just a pain-avoidance mechanism. Yes, I am the best type of man. But you are not as you are not part of the functional 80%, but rather the bottom 20%.

        (laughter reserved for the end of this comment, since the best zinger is yet to come)


        Since your woman is obese, you are very insecure that she might leave you for a black guy. Chris Rock said as much about bottom-rung WN types like you. That is your constant worry as a fatty fucker...

        Heh heh heh heh

      150. Anonymous[124] • Disclaimer says:
        @Alden
        There are a lot of misogynist women hating men on UNZ constantly ranting that women don’t cook for their families b cause they have jobs.

        This thread is an excellent example. It’s very obvious to me that the men who claim women and their live on fast food have never shopped for food or cooked a dinner for one in their lives.

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.

        Here’s a good meal for a family that can be fixed in about 25 minutes. No boxed or prepared foods.

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.

        Serve a 20-25 minute dinner.

        Even faster. 15 minutes or less

        Night before take container of homemade spaghetti bolognese sauce out of freezer. Bolognese is mostly meat, not tomato sauce.

        Come home enter kitchen. Put pot of water to boil. Put thawed bolognese sauce in pan turn on heat stir occasionally. Chop up lettuce add tomatoes cucumber carrots or not. Pour oil vinegar salt & pepper bottom of bowl. Put lettuce etc in bowl. Stir around.

        Drain noodles pour on bolognese sauce. If husband and kids demand garlic bread let them make it.

        When oldest kid is 12 youngest 10

        Come home enter kitchen. Set table help kids serve the meal they cooked. Kids love to cook and they’d much rather cook dinner than do dishes.

        But women haters who don’t food shop or cook don’t realize how fast and easy it is because they don’t do it and don’t know how.

        So they believe women feed their families nothing but fast food. They also seem to believe that husbands don’t participate in food shopping cooking and getting meals on the table.

        The women haters seem to think that shopping and cooking are so difficult and time consuming they can’t be done.

        Preparing meals is time-consuming, but not that time-consuming. Mainly, you need to be in the habit of shopping for good food ingredients, preparing and cooking meals — and cleaning up as you go, so that your kitchen is just as spic-and-span when you finish as when you started.
        Also, a lot of people don’t realize just what you can do without much effort to produce really excellent meals.
        For example, you mentioned making biscuits using margarine. I never use margarine. I use butter — butter that I make myself. When I mention to people that I make my own butter, they say, “Oh, get out of here! how can you do that?” But it’s so easy! Beat cream in a food processor and within minutes you have buttermilk and butter. Strain out the buttermilk and thoroughly rinse the butter, add salt to taste (and to preserve the butter). That’s it. You can make your butter while you are doing other things. And of course now you can make buttermilk biscuits, too!
        While I’m making the butter and biscuits, if I am preparing breakfast — for example, omelets — I dice potatoes, onions, a bit of fresh garlic, green and red peppers, a carrot, and a jalapeño (for zest), fry them, squeeze fresh Valencias for orange juice, grind the coffee beans for siphon coffee, get that going. Then a minute to whip the eggs and make the omelets, and — voilà! — breakfast so good nobody leaves a scrap for the dog. How long did it take? Half an hour, maybe less.
        Oh, and I use cast iron cookware handed down the generations.
        Second Oh — my grandmother disdained using butter for biscuits, preferring lard, which she also used to make the most light and flaky pie crusts.
        A lot of times people will say to me that they don’t have an extra half an hour in the morning because they are too busy, but I say, well, get up a half an hour earlier!
        The only time I didn’t have enough time to prepare proper meals, even just for myself, was when I was interning and had a 30-hour on, 10-hour off schedule. Then I ate fast food I picked up on the way home and fell asleep while eating, so I know sometimes you just really can’t make a nice meal. But that’s always only a temporary situation.
        There are many things you can’t have in this world, but you can always have excellent meals, as good as at the finest restaurant — better! — if you have your own kitchen and do your own shopping and meal preparation.

      151. That’s why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.
        Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That’s a good thing.

        “Reason” magazine is one of those magazines that really does belong in quotes.

        Ok, to be fair, if you give him the bailout, that at some point the immivasion or the Chinese takeover because of the immivasion has either destoryed the polity and/or name “United States of America”… then he’s at least some sort of chance of being technically “right”. Otherwise, he needs a large meteor strike.

        Selection–organisms with characteristic that allow them to survive and reproduce, creating the next generation–is not a logically difficult concept.

        And it’s one he should have some rather direct feel for:

        Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

      152. Anon[112] • Disclaimer says:
        @Hail

        In the USA, never-married rates have increased significantly, overall marriage rates have decreased
         
        Charles Murray, in Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 to 2010, has some good analysis and data on marriages in the US; his conclusion on marriages may not be news to many reading this in 2020, but what he found was a double narrative on the decline of marriage: Among low-SES whites, marriage as an institution/norm has all but collapsed, while upper-SES whites are doing fine, with no substantial decline.

        A lot of the data in that book suggest, as an ultra-simplistic-but-not-wrong para-narrative, that the US turned against its own white working people in the latter few decades of the 20th century. A lot of the data points to that, as did the overall picture of the lay of the land by the 2000s and 2010s (one reason for Trump).

        Since the study is focused solely on Whites, Murray doesn't much mention the big parallel trend of the time, the net immigrant population increase that now approaches 100 million net new immigrant-stock citizens since the golden era of the early 1960s about which he spends the introduction waxing nostalgic.

        I'd, therefore, say a lot of it comes back to TG's original point; he got several 'Agrees' there for a reason.

        The white poverty thing is hogwash. When you account for purchasing power, people are far more well-off today than in 1970.

        Not having money to raise lots of kids =/= not ever getting married and not even having sex. These problems are afflicting Americans more than ever before, especially with younger generations.

        Look at this:

        https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/

        It is not at all impossible to get married and make babies if you are not High SES. Our grandparents all did this, and did ok. Even if you are poor, you can always afford *one* baby.

        Black and Hispanic people do fine without much money. Did you know that the government gives free breakfast and lunch in public schools? You do not need too much money to reproduce.

      153. @dfordoom

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies
         
        I think that's almost certainly true.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.
         
        Yes. And also requiring people to give a valid reason for needing a university education would help.

        Valid reasons would be something like an intention to become a doctor or an engineer. Valid reasons would not include wanting to do a major in Gender Studies or Film Studies.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that’s another story. I don’t know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture. It’s certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        • Replies: @res

        I don’t know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education.
         
        I think it has to do with what "liberal arts education" has become in The Current Year.

        It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture.
         
        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.

        It’s certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.
         
        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.

        I think there is great value in a traditional liberal arts education. Though you might ponder what that includes: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

        What there is not great value in is a "liberal arts education" which consists of:
        Wokism applied to writing.
        Wokism applied to history.
        Wokism applied to politics.
        etc.
        , @dfordoom

        Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that’s another story.
         
        If the Gender Studies majors are not merely useless but actively harmful, maybe society should discourage them.

        That's the problem. A liberal arts education is not merely useless, it is a means to destroy society.

        It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture.
         
        Not any more. Not for a long long time. Today it's the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in destroying our civilisation.

        So I think an argument can be made to restrict university educations to those who will benefit society rather than harming it.

        I personally would not ban useless fields of studies but I would tell people that if they want to do a Mickey Mouse degree they can do it on their own dime. No direct or indirect subsidies, no student loans, no nothing. They pay the full cost up front (including bidden costs like the maintenance of the buildings, etc). The effect of that would be - no more Gender Studies majors.
        , @iffen
        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
        , @MikeatMikedotMike
        "Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study."

        I do if I'm helping to pay for it.
      154. @Rosie

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Good grief. You don't really have any business telling people what they can and can't study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that's another story. I don't know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people's history and culture. It's certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        I don’t know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education.

        I think it has to do with what “liberal arts education” has become in The Current Year.

        It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture.

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.

        It’s certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.

        I think there is great value in a traditional liberal arts education. Though you might ponder what that includes: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

        What there is not great value in is a “liberal arts education” which consists of:
        Wokism applied to writing.
        Wokism applied to history.
        Wokism applied to politics.
        etc.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.
         
        True, but that's no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn't be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.
         
        I have known precisely one engineer who had any interest in theology and the humanities. Perhaps my acquaintances aren't representative. In any event, I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.
      155. @res

        I don’t know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education.
         
        I think it has to do with what "liberal arts education" has become in The Current Year.

        It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture.
         
        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.

        It’s certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.
         
        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.

        I think there is great value in a traditional liberal arts education. Though you might ponder what that includes: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts

        What there is not great value in is a "liberal arts education" which consists of:
        Wokism applied to writing.
        Wokism applied to history.
        Wokism applied to politics.
        etc.

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.

        True, but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn’t be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.

        I have known precisely one engineer who had any interest in theology and the humanities. Perhaps my acquaintances aren’t representative. In any event, I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.
         
        Maybe try not giving too many students a strong distaste for them by (a) cramming them down their throats with whatever slant is current and (b) grading them on what amounts to a trivia quiz on disconnected facts.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.
         
        Start by eliminating all of the "equality" and "diversity" requirements on universities, the reporting required to enforce them and the bureaucracy required to collect the data and fill out the reports.
        , @res

        but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such
         
        It can be hard to distinguish attacks on higher education in general from attacks on the current incarnation. Though admittedly some of the attackers aren't very discriminating either ; )

        theology and the humanities
         
        Those are rather different topics IMO. Why lump them? FWIW I would agree with your stereotype more for theology. Though there are exceptions.
        , @dfordoom

        True, but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn’t be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.
         
        That is a good point I must admit.
      156. @dfordoom

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies
         
        I think that's almost certainly true.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.
         
        Yes. And also requiring people to give a valid reason for needing a university education would help.

        Valid reasons would be something like an intention to become a doctor or an engineer. Valid reasons would not include wanting to do a major in Gender Studies or Film Studies.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        Or tell the people who want to go into Gender Studies that they’re not eligible for guaranteed student loans and have to either find private money or pay their own way.  Universities will react VERY quickly to the cratering number of enrollees.

        Weed-out courses would come back with a vengeance, removing the students who can’t hack it before they have mortgaged their whole lives.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
        • Replies: @Rosie

        Or tell the people who want to go into Gender Studies that they’re not eligible for guaranteed student loans and have to either find private money or pay their own way. Universities will react VERY quickly to the cratering number of enrollees.
         
        Another approach would be to reinstate bankruptcy rights to student loan borrowers, perhaps in a modified form. That would put an end to the education bubble right quick.
      157. @Rosie

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.
         
        True, but that's no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn't be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.
         
        I have known precisely one engineer who had any interest in theology and the humanities. Perhaps my acquaintances aren't representative. In any event, I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.

        I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        Maybe try not giving too many students a strong distaste for them by (a) cramming them down their throats with whatever slant is current and (b) grading them on what amounts to a trivia quiz on disconnected facts.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.

        Start by eliminating all of the “equality” and “diversity” requirements on universities, the reporting required to enforce them and the bureaucracy required to collect the data and fill out the reports.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Start by eliminating all of the “equality” and “diversity” requirements on universities, the reporting required to enforce them and the bureaucracy required to collect the data and fill out the reports.
         
        Have you ever seen the kinds of cars university administrators drive?

        I suspect the HR lady making 30K a drop in the bucket by comparison.

        And anyway, dispute resolution is an expense of civilization, a cost of doing business. If we're not going to do it the old-fashioned way, we have to do it the new-fashioned way. Justice isn't free, and sometimes it's not even cheap, but it's worthwhile nonetheless. Unions have always bargained for arbitration procedures designed to protect relatively less-powerful employees from relatively more-powerful managers, because people value their procedural rights.
      158. @Mr. Rational

        I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.
         
        Maybe try not giving too many students a strong distaste for them by (a) cramming them down their throats with whatever slant is current and (b) grading them on what amounts to a trivia quiz on disconnected facts.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.
         
        Start by eliminating all of the "equality" and "diversity" requirements on universities, the reporting required to enforce them and the bureaucracy required to collect the data and fill out the reports.

        Start by eliminating all of the “equality” and “diversity” requirements on universities, the reporting required to enforce them and the bureaucracy required to collect the data and fill out the reports.

        Have you ever seen the kinds of cars university administrators drive?

        I suspect the HR lady making 30K a drop in the bucket by comparison.

        And anyway, dispute resolution is an expense of civilization, a cost of doing business. If we’re not going to do it the old-fashioned way, we have to do it the new-fashioned way. Justice isn’t free, and sometimes it’s not even cheap, but it’s worthwhile nonetheless. Unions have always bargained for arbitration procedures designed to protect relatively less-powerful employees from relatively more-powerful managers, because people value their procedural rights.

      159. @Mr. Rational

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Or tell the people who want to go into Gender Studies that they're not eligible for guaranteed student loans and have to either find private money or pay their own way.  Universities will react VERY quickly to the cratering number of enrollees.

        Weed-out courses would come back with a vengeance, removing the students who can't hack it before they have mortgaged their whole lives.

        Or tell the people who want to go into Gender Studies that they’re not eligible for guaranteed student loans and have to either find private money or pay their own way. Universities will react VERY quickly to the cratering number of enrollees.

        Another approach would be to reinstate bankruptcy rights to student loan borrowers, perhaps in a modified form. That would put an end to the education bubble right quick.

      160. @Rosie

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.
         
        True, but that's no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn't be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.
         
        I have known precisely one engineer who had any interest in theology and the humanities. Perhaps my acquaintances aren't representative. In any event, I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.

        but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such

        It can be hard to distinguish attacks on higher education in general from attacks on the current incarnation. Though admittedly some of the attackers aren’t very discriminating either ; )

        theology and the humanities

        Those are rather different topics IMO. Why lump them? FWIW I would agree with your stereotype more for theology. Though there are exceptions.

        • Replies: @Rosie

        Those are rather different topics IMO. Why lump them?
         
        I suppose I get the sense that people who are interested in one are also interested in the other.

        It seems to me that people who are interested in the humanities tend to at least be somewhat interested in God. They may not believe, but they are not indifferent. History may be an exception, but I think that my impression has at least some truth to it in the case of literature and philosophy.
      161. @res

        but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such
         
        It can be hard to distinguish attacks on higher education in general from attacks on the current incarnation. Though admittedly some of the attackers aren't very discriminating either ; )

        theology and the humanities
         
        Those are rather different topics IMO. Why lump them? FWIW I would agree with your stereotype more for theology. Though there are exceptions.

        Those are rather different topics IMO. Why lump them?

        I suppose I get the sense that people who are interested in one are also interested in the other.

        It seems to me that people who are interested in the humanities tend to at least be somewhat interested in God. They may not believe, but they are not indifferent. History may be an exception, but I think that my impression has at least some truth to it in the case of literature and philosophy.

      162. @AnotherDad
        Thomm, my deepest apologies that one of my brother pale-penis-people saddled up and rode your girlfriend. We're the best and some girls just have to have a taste.

        My sincere advice: get over it! There are plenty of fish in the sea. Millions of attractive young women enter the market every year. Work on being a better--and less silly and petulant--you.

        Heh. Your comment reveals more about yourself than you know.

        Most WNs on this thread are gay. You are among the few that are not gay, but you are definitely a fat fetishist, given your reaction to my very benign, fact-based comment.

        Oh, and I am pretty sure you know I am a white guy. Imagining I am an Arab, South Asian, or Jew is just a pain-avoidance mechanism. Yes, I am the best type of man. But you are not as you are not part of the functional 80%, but rather the bottom 20%.

        (laughter reserved for the end of this comment, since the best zinger is yet to come)

        Since your woman is obese, you are very insecure that she might leave you for a black guy. Chris Rock said as much about bottom-rung WN types like you. That is your constant worry as a fatty fucker…

        Heh heh heh heh

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Schoolmarm: People are not "wastematter".
      163. @Lars Porsena
        Vegetables are barely any digestible carbs, mostly fiber.

        If you eat raw vegetables all day long you will still starve to death. You don't get enough calories from just vegetables to even survive. The only exceptions to this are grains, nuts, and legumes (all of which are technically fruiting bodies).

        Of course. But the idea is that vegetables are “big food.” Satiety. Therefore, you eat less of non-vegetable food. This “big food” phenomenon has been studied, e.g., stew vs. same stew +water, turning it into a soup, resulting in eating less.

      164. @Justvisiting

        I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        Close knit communities usually have insane religious and/or cultural beliefs, and enforce them with vigor.

        However, they also tend to have much lower crime rates and are family-friendly.

        They make great neighbors--I just wouldn't want to be under their thumb.

        Close knit communities usually have insane religious and/or cultural beliefs, and enforce them with vigor.

        However, they also tend to have much lower crime rates and are family-friendly.

        They make great neighbors–I just wouldn’t want to be under their thumb.

        They’re probably great for people who like that sort of thing. I don’t particularly want someone else’s religious and/or cultural beliefs enforced upon me with vigour.

        One of the reasons people head to big cities is to get away from close-knit communities.

        So on balance I’ll give close-knit communities a miss.

      165. @Bill

        But giving up our individuality to become part of a coherent close-knit community, and giving up our urban existences, and giving up our very nice lifestyles, and giving up our high material standards of living, and giving up on education for women (all necessary if we want to boost fertility) – these are very very unattractive choices unless you have some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment. Without that commitment no sane rational person would make such a choice.
         
        The paragraph treats the view that "our individuality" is the highest value as the default assumption which can only be overcome by "some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment." Obviously, the view that "our individuality" is the highest value is, itself, a very deep religious or ideological commitment. The people who called this commitment into being and spread it throughout the West knew that.

        Really, what you are saying is that "the Enlightenment" is an evolutionarily dysfunctional thing, that it is contrary to natural law, that it is destined to die. From your lips to God's ear.

        The paragraph treats the view that “our individuality” is the highest value as the default assumption which can only be overcome by “some kind of very deep religious or ideological commitment.”

        I don’t think it’s the default assumption for humanity. People are different. Societies are different. There have always been tensions between individualism and what might be called communitarianism. In some societies communitarianism is overwhelmingly the dominant assumption and if you don’t like it life can be made very unpleasant for you. In other societies (such as the modern West) individualism has become the dominant assumption.

        Obviously, the view that “our individuality” is the highest value is, itself, a very deep religious or ideological commitment. The people who called this commitment into being and spread it throughout the West knew that.

        I’m not sure it’s dependent on religious or ideological commitment. To some extent it is, but to some extent it seems to be what people chose when they have a choice. It was spread throughout the West mostly by capitalism, industrialisation and urbanisation – not really by some sinister group of conspirators.

        Where we really differ is that I think it’s a valid choice. You might not like that choice, you might intensely dislike that choice, but you can’t tell other people that it’s not a valid choice for them.

        As long as people are prepared to be law-abiding and to accept basic social responsibilities (like paying their taxes) I don’t see any reason to pressure them into abandoning individualism if that’s the optimum choice for them.

        Of course it can be pushed to an extreme, which is what libertarians do. Then you get chaos and nihilism. Just as communitarianism can be pushed to an extreme (in which case you get either secular or religious totalitarianism). I think it can be argued that the modern West has pushed individualism too far, but if the alternative seems to be secular or religious totalitarianism then it’s perfectly valid and rational for people to prefer individualism.

        The trouble with humans is that we swing between extremes. We either prefer extremism to moderation, or possibly it’s the case that small groups who advocate extremist solutions are more effective in pushing their agendas and the moderates end up getting crushed or marginalised.

      166. @Rosie

        Enter kitchen put 2 pots of water to boil. Turn oven on to 250. Remove thin steaks from fridge. Put in oven. Heat up frying pan not Teflon. Put noodles in boiling water. Chop up vegetable put in other pot. Fry steaks in very hot pan. When done put some mushrooms onions worchrstirr and water on steaks let cook. Drain noodles. Mix with cream cheese sour cream lots of chopped parsley bit minced onions. Drain vegetables.
         
        This sounds delicious. The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it. I could easily spend all day in the kitchen, and will happily do it when I have time as well as a crowd to feed. Alas, even as a SAHM, I normally don't have that. I compromise more than I used to. If I didn't, there would be no time for anything else.

        And of course, there are some things that are just better to buy. Pesto sauce costs a fortune to make, and my whole family loves it, so that is one of the things I just buy, and that's a quick meal when I need it.

        You're quite right about the frying pan, too. If you don't know how to cook with stainless steel, you don't know how to cook. If you can saute a piece of meat and make a pan sauce, you can always get dinner on the table quickly.

        The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it.

        I think that’s very true. Preparing a meal is an activity that takes between five minutes and six hours.

        I can cook properly if I’m motivated and energetic enough to do so. These days I find that I need the motivation and energy for other activities.

        The important thing is not to make food preparation a moral issue. People whose idea of food preparation is “pierce film in two places and microwave on High for three minutes” or ordering a home delivery pizza are not, contrary to what some people here seem to think, morally inferior to people who spend hours toiling in the kitchen.

        • Replies: @silviosilver

        I can cook properly if I’m motivated and energetic enough to do so. These days I find that I need the motivation and energy for other activities.
         
        After all, 200 comments/month are not going to write themselves. ;-)
      167. @MikeatMikedotMike
        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?

        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?

        The Chinese are making the attempt to force capitalism to serve society.

        Western European states from 1945 until roughly the end of the 20th century seemed to be doing at least a moderately successful job of forcing capitalism to serve society.

        It helps if the capitalists know that if they step out of line the government will come down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks.

        And lots of things can ameliorate the worst effects of capitalism. Things like the welfare state.

        What you need is to get rid of corrupt systems like the US system where capitalists can buy politicians the same way you buy a whore on a street corner.

      168. @dfordoom

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been.
         
        Everyone believes that, but is it true?

        In England during Victorian times the urban working classes were notoriously puny and unhealthy. When the Empire suddenly needed cannon fodder in 1914 they found that many working class recruits had to be rejected on the grounds of physical unfitness. They weren't fat but they were arguably in worse physical condition than even overweight modern Americans. The Victorian working classes were also noted for being much shorter than the middle and upper classes.

        Modern Americans may be the fattest people in history, but they're not necessarily the most unhealthy.

        I would say that modern American kids are probably healthier in that yeah, they’re not 5-foot-nothing these days, and you don’t see bandy legs due to rickets, or kids having to have all their teeth out by the time they’re 20, but one thing that may make a difference is, they didn’t grow up playing outside, climbing trees, wrestling, hunting squirrels, fishing etc., so they’re really clumsy and the simplest mechanical things that are not a game controller tend to utterly alienate them. There’s a muscle memory and body awareness that’s developed in the kind of impromptu sports kids come up with that can only be instilled in childhood.

        Hand me a pocketknife at age 12 and I’d whittle out some other toys. Hand a modern kid a pocketknife at age 12 and get the band-aids ready. It might call for stitches.

        Even in the Army Oh so long ago around 1980, I was the only one w/o blisters after a long march since after all I was used to long walks, and barefoot too, and felt kinda left out. And I gained weight while my fellow recruits lost it. I thought Army food was great but I don’t remember a lot of rave reviews among my fellows.

      169. @Toronto Russian
        I've recently read a lot of articles on Israeli family life, authors ranging from non-Jews who got there through marriage to an actual Haredi guy (their religion doesn't allow them to watch television but allows to use computers, and there is such thing as Kosher Internet). The takeaway is they don't achieve high fertility by heroically overcoming discomfort, but collectively make childrearing as comfortable as possible.

        The Haredi community will always watch over your kids if you need to go somewhere, or you can take them to your workplace (many women go to work to support their husbands who study the Torah all day) and you don't end up stuck at home for years. There's a lot of sharing/free renting of stuff. Fathers do not see walking with strollers and hands-on care of little kids as below them or unmanly. As a result, female life expectancy is 85.6 years - 1.5 years higher than of non-Haredi women with the same socioeconomic status. Having 7 kids is hard work, but for them it is eased enough to not wear down their bodies at a fast pace. For men it's 3 years higher, so they also get the good end of the deal.

        Secular men do childcare and housework, to great excitement of Slavic Russian wives who aren't used to such behaviour of fathers at all (most common number of children in the families of those Russian "patriarchs": 1). The local community watches the kids as they play outdoors (if parents are supervising a child themselves they're usually newcomers or tourists), the culture doesn't demand of mothers to keep them always clean and well-behaved. Girls aren't shoved into marriage and motherhood in their teens (no they don't marry at 18 to avoid the army - it's an important instrument of socialization, and there's always alternative service for those who wish), but marry around 30 and try to give birth to 3 kids as quickly as possible (the William and Kate model so to say). The average age at first marriage is low because the Haredi pull it down.

        That's basically it. Oh, and having 3 kids is Just What's Done, and friends and relatives will pester a new married couple about it incessantly (but - it's important - without any negativity or aggression that could provoke resistance). In the sphere of government social support for families, everything is quite boring and ordinary like in other developed countries.

        I’ve come across this in other internet sites. Among the ultra-orthodox, it’s acknowledged that raising children is expensive, so what they’ve done is make it as easy and cheap as possible. Children’s clothes are passed on when done with, there’s tons of mutual help, and that plus other things as pretty much always eating home-cooked food from cheap staple ingredients (“Jewish” cuts of meat were always the cheaper stuff like the brisket and things like chicken liver) it’s possible for them to raise large broods while it’s next to impossible for the average American unless they really don’t mind the vision of their kid having to sign onto the military once they hit 17-1/2 or live in the street.

      170. @Rosie

        Are you saying here that a severe restriction on birth-control methods would be what you would do to turn things around?
         
        I'm saying I would much prefer severe restrictions on birth control to severe restriction on women's education, or any at all for that matter.

        Or is there something else?
         
        Yes, White Pride Worldwide!

        Israel has very healthy fertility, even among highly educated, secular women. They take pride in their heritage and recognize the need to reproduce if their people are to have a future.

        Israel is *very* Socialist compared to the USA. Is that what you want? Do you want Godless Communism to win?

        No, no, far better to die out, if that’s what capitalism dictates. After all, the free market is wiser than us…

        • Replies: @Hail

        *very* Socialist
         
        I have seen data suggesting that the most social-welfare-oriented states in Europe, in Scandinavia, have the most success of any White-Christians in the world re propping up white fertility while also keeping it non-dysgenic.

        I don't know what their secret is, but the model of that success mixed with inviting in Muslims and Africans is obviously not stable.

        I am among the many White Americans with substantial Scandinavian ancestry. Being also familiar with the rural Upper Midwest and Scandinavian-origin relatives there (much of the Upper Midwest being, traditionally, a kind of defacto soft-ethnostate for Scandinavians, Germans, and kindred NW-European peoples (not neglecting the earlier Yankee settler layer), I can imagine well the outlines of how the Scandinavian model works, even never having been there.

        If any real Scandinavian is reading this, please, thoughts.
      171. @Liberty Mike
        Perhaps we are writing past each other.

        I did not define close-knit community or assumed any particular definition.

        My post was a riff on what I think is a broad, general desire of most human beings to be around kith and kin. Hence, my allusion to the lyrics of Cheers, the music of which I posit has an undeniable catchy hook.

        Perhaps we are writing past each other.

        Yes, I think we probably are.

        I did not define close-knit community or assumed any particular definition.

        My post was a riff on what I think is a broad, general desire of most human beings to be around kith and kin.

        Your point about definitions is quite valid. A close-knit community can be a neighbourhood in which people get on well with their neighbours, help them out occasionally, maybe baby-sit their kids from time to time, but don’t interfere in each other’s lives.

        Or a close-knit community can be a stifling and oppressive situation in which everyone wants to tell everyone else how to live.

        I personally probably wouldn’t choose either but I can see the attractions of the former.

      172. @Rosie

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Good grief. You don't really have any business telling people what they can and can't study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that's another story. I don't know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people's history and culture. It's certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that’s another story.

        If the Gender Studies majors are not merely useless but actively harmful, maybe society should discourage them.

        That’s the problem. A liberal arts education is not merely useless, it is a means to destroy society.

        It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people’s history and culture.

        Not any more. Not for a long long time. Today it’s the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in destroying our civilisation.

        So I think an argument can be made to restrict university educations to those who will benefit society rather than harming it.

        I personally would not ban useless fields of studies but I would tell people that if they want to do a Mickey Mouse degree they can do it on their own dime. No direct or indirect subsidies, no student loans, no nothing. They pay the full cost up front (including bidden costs like the maintenance of the buildings, etc). The effect of that would be – no more Gender Studies majors.

        • Agree: Mr. Rational
      173. @Rosie

        It can be. Is that what you see happening in US universities right now? If anything the effect seems to be the opposite at the moment.
         
        True, but that's no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn't be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        Nothing quite like countering stereotypes with more stereotypes.
         
        I have known precisely one engineer who had any interest in theology and the humanities. Perhaps my acquaintances aren't representative. In any event, I think the humanities are for whoever is interested, whatever their career plans.

        The challenge is to reduce the cost.

        True, but that’s no reason to attack higher education as such. The problem with these reactionary solutions is that, if the Right had any power to implement them, they wouldn’t be necessary, because the Right would control the universities.

        That is a good point I must admit.

      174. @alex in San Jose AKA Digital Detroit
        Israel is *very* Socialist compared to the USA. Is that what you want? Do you want Godless Communism to win?

        No, no, far better to die out, if that's what capitalism dictates. After all, the free market is wiser than us...

        *very* Socialist

        I have seen data suggesting that the most social-welfare-oriented states in Europe, in Scandinavia, have the most success of any White-Christians in the world re propping up white fertility while also keeping it non-dysgenic.

        I don’t know what their secret is, but the model of that success mixed with inviting in Muslims and Africans is obviously not stable.

        I am among the many White Americans with substantial Scandinavian ancestry. Being also familiar with the rural Upper Midwest and Scandinavian-origin relatives there (much of the Upper Midwest being, traditionally, a kind of defacto soft-ethnostate for Scandinavians, Germans, and kindred NW-European peoples (not neglecting the earlier Yankee settler layer), I can imagine well the outlines of how the Scandinavian model works, even never having been there.

        If any real Scandinavian is reading this, please, thoughts.

      175. @Rosie

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Good grief. You don't really have any business telling people what they can and can't study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that's another story. I don't know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people's history and culture. It's certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
         
        They'd have genderfluid queer engineering which will be far more advanced that the current oppressive patriarchal heteronormative engineering. They'll get rid of the math in engineering for starters (math is a sexist homophobic social construct).
        , @Rosie

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
         
        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.
      176. “That’s the problem. A liberal arts education is not merely useless, it is a means to destroy society.”

        I don’t think you have any idea what you are on about. Social Science did not lay the foundations of upending societies traditional way of life. Those foundation were laid by the hard science hone awry.

        And one might start with Dr. Charles Darwin. The Origin of the Species and its subsequent speculations that all living beings started from a single set point is a fine theory, but a fact it is not.

        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.
         
        They were sure as hell not scientists. There's not a shred of science in Freudianism.

        Your point about Darwin playing a major rôle in the destruction of civilisation is however well taken.

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
      177. I take it those of you eager to rid the US of social sciences are prepared to jettison the foundations of western civilization: politics (and its cousin – rhetoric)/governance, philosophy and religion/ christian faith and practice (the primary target)

        Dr. Freud and Dr. Darwin are considered to have made direct hits on traditional practice and ethos.

      178. @iffen
        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?

        They’d have genderfluid queer engineering which will be far more advanced that the current oppressive patriarchal heteronormative engineering. They’ll get rid of the math in engineering for starters (math is a sexist homophobic social construct).

        • Replies: @iffen
        They’d have genderfluid queer engineering which will be far more advanced

        I spoke too soon as you are clearly on to something. After they created a multi-tasking, multi-potential, multi-position, infinitely flexible, infinitely pliable, infinitely trans-purposed apex widget, there would be no need for any future innovations in widget world.
      179. @dfordoom

        The truth of the matter is that cooking is much like anything else. It will expand to fill the time you allot for it.
         
        I think that's very true. Preparing a meal is an activity that takes between five minutes and six hours.

        I can cook properly if I'm motivated and energetic enough to do so. These days I find that I need the motivation and energy for other activities.

        The important thing is not to make food preparation a moral issue. People whose idea of food preparation is "pierce film in two places and microwave on High for three minutes" or ordering a home delivery pizza are not, contrary to what some people here seem to think, morally inferior to people who spend hours toiling in the kitchen.

        I can cook properly if I’m motivated and energetic enough to do so. These days I find that I need the motivation and energy for other activities.

        After all, 200 comments/month are not going to write themselves. 😉

      180. @EliteCommInc.
        "That’s the problem. A liberal arts education is not merely useless, it is a means to destroy society."


        I don't think you have any idea what you are on about. Social Science did not lay the foundations of upending societies traditional way of life. Those foundation were laid by the hard science hone awry.

        And one might start with Dr. Charles Darwin. The Origin of the Species and its subsequent speculations that all living beings started from a single set point is a fine theory, but a fact it is not.


        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.

        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.

        They were sure as hell not scientists. There’s not a shred of science in Freudianism.

        Your point about Darwin playing a major rôle in the destruction of civilisation is however well taken.

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.

        • Replies: @iffen
        1. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
        2. Fall of Roman Civilization and the Dark Ages
        3. Anthropogenic impact on climate
        4. The "Right" is in control

        A handy list for you of the things upon which you are completely wrong.
        , @Mr. Rational

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
         
        Darwinian (and sexual/social) selection explains how we got the modern West in the first place.  A great deal of it was ruthless selection against violent tendencies, by executing the violent and removing their inherited traits from the gene pool.

        Darwin started (a) the process of explaining to us how we came to BE us.  Part and parcel of understanding that is also (b) understanding how we can be UN-done, and what (c) we need to do to prevent it.  It appears that (b) is being exploited all too effectively by our enemies.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.
         
        Explain the Michelson-Morly experiment results, then.  Charismatic fuzzy thinkers have always done damage; they don't need physics.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn't write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.

        Perhaps it's time to require people to have a degree in STEM to talk about science to the public.  That will get rid of the illiterate and innumerate journalists writing garbage.
      181. @dfordoom

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
         
        They'd have genderfluid queer engineering which will be far more advanced that the current oppressive patriarchal heteronormative engineering. They'll get rid of the math in engineering for starters (math is a sexist homophobic social construct).

        They’d have genderfluid queer engineering which will be far more advanced

        I spoke too soon as you are clearly on to something. After they created a multi-tasking, multi-potential, multi-position, infinitely flexible, infinitely pliable, infinitely trans-purposed apex widget, there would be no need for any future innovations in widget world.

      182. @dfordoom

        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.
         
        They were sure as hell not scientists. There's not a shred of science in Freudianism.

        Your point about Darwin playing a major rôle in the destruction of civilisation is however well taken.

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.

        1. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
        2. Fall of Roman Civilization and the Dark Ages
        3. Anthropogenic impact on climate
        4. The “Right” is in control

        A handy list for you of the things upon which you are completely wrong.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        1. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
        2. Fall of Roman Civilization and the Dark Ages
        3. Anthropogenic impact on climate
        4. The “Right” is in control

        A handy list for you of the things upon which you are completely wrong.
         
        1. Darwinism was anti-civilisational in the sense that it was the last nail in the coffin of Christianity, and the last nail in the coffin of the idea of life as being something with meaning and dignity. It opened the door finally and for good to the crassest kind of materialism. It was also the last nail in the coffin for morality as anything other than a vicious struggle for power and a mindless indulgence in hedonism. I think Darwinism is true, but it was a disaster for civilisation.

        2. Roman Civilisation? There was such a thing as Roman Civilisation?

        3. Pure silliness. But great for the corporate bottom line. And great for the bureaucracy. Cui bono.

        4. The Right is in control. It's just not the Right that people around here were hoping for.
      183. @MikeatMikedotMike
        This is a surprisingly insightful point. I wonder if you have any idea how to achieve what you suggest?

        Just for the record, I’ve already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational
        I know I've proposed the same thing, and I'm sure it was well over a month ago.
        , @MikeatMikedotMike
        Sadly I do not often have time to read every comment, but the link to your comment is appreciated.
        , @Willem
        I like your idea of saving the economy. Reason why I did not reply, is because I didn’t see your comment.

        Some parts of your theory can be improved. For instance wages adjusted for inflation. This is only fair to some degree, i.e., for people who just make ends meet.

        So suppose that your salary is 1000 USD per month, which you need in full to pay for expenses. Now suppose the yearly inflation is 2%, then you need in the next year 1000*1,02=1020 USD/ month to pay for your expenses (alternative is that you end up being 20 USD in debt). So there wage adjustment for inflation is fair.

        But now suppose your salary is 10000 USD per month, and you pay 1000 USD per month for expenses. Inflation is 2%, and your wages are ‘adjusted’ for inflation. In the next year your salary will then be 10000*1,02=10200 USD, meaning that you save 200-20=180 USD more per month due to wage adjusted inflation.

        Now people with high salaries have higher expenses, so one needs to take that into account too (maybe). But the point is, as long as the person who earns 10000 USD per month is able to save more money vs the person who earns 1000 USD per month (which is highly likely), the person who earns 10000 USD will be better of when his wages are adjusted for inflation than the person who earns 1000 USD per month.

        One of the appalling things of Unions in NL is that they always ask for a same percentage in pay rise over all the people they represent (high and low salary). Usually those with low salary really need a wage increase (far more than those who have a high salary), and they are the ones most loyal to the unions. But in the end they always get a same percentage in wage increase (if the union was succesful in negotiating) as those with a high salary, suggesting to their members that this is ‘fair’ game. As the math example shows, it is not.

        Fair could be something like: the tax office that calculates everyone’s monthly expenses, and only adjust wages for inflation based on expenses.

        Although that would also not be totally fair because then people who are great spenders, are more compensated then those who spend less, but have the same salary.

        Why not just get rid of this all, and demand a basic income, which would guarantee for everyone that they can live their life ‘decently’ (this also needs to be defined, but for sake of length of my reply, I will skip it). And for those who want to have more than decency, for instance ‘luxury’ they can always work more, although inflation might lead to losses of savings. But then: why work for money, if even without work you can have a decent life?
        , @MikeatMikedotMike
        I read your plan and would certainly be willing to implement it. As I'm sure you've noticed around the dissident web sphere in general and TUR specifically, none of these pundits ever have a plan to fix anything.

        I do have a question though, since the plan requires significant participation and expenditures from the feds: Would your plan benefit more, less or unchanged by eliminating a majority of the welfare entitlements currently in place?

        As you mentioned, incentivizing employment is crucial, and welfare incentivizes the opposite.
      184. @iffen
        1. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
        2. Fall of Roman Civilization and the Dark Ages
        3. Anthropogenic impact on climate
        4. The "Right" is in control

        A handy list for you of the things upon which you are completely wrong.

        1. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
        2. Fall of Roman Civilization and the Dark Ages
        3. Anthropogenic impact on climate
        4. The “Right” is in control

        A handy list for you of the things upon which you are completely wrong.

        1. Darwinism was anti-civilisational in the sense that it was the last nail in the coffin of Christianity, and the last nail in the coffin of the idea of life as being something with meaning and dignity. It opened the door finally and for good to the crassest kind of materialism. It was also the last nail in the coffin for morality as anything other than a vicious struggle for power and a mindless indulgence in hedonism. I think Darwinism is true, but it was a disaster for civilisation.

        2. Roman Civilisation? There was such a thing as Roman Civilisation?

        3. Pure silliness. But great for the corporate bottom line. And great for the bureaucracy. Cui bono.

        4. The Right is in control. It’s just not the Right that people around here were hoping for.

      185. During the time I’ve been reading and commenting at UR, I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

        Aspartame and other calorie-free sugar substitutes can change the way a body processes fat and likely prompt diabetes and obesity, just like real sugar does. New evidence from a study of 450,000 Europeans suggests that drinking two artificially-sweetened soft drinks a day is linked with increased risk of early death.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/aspartame-sugar-artificial-sweeteners-bad-for-boy-2018-5

        Aspartame, the world’s most popular sugar substitute, is found in thousands of sugar-free, low-sugar and so-called “diet” drinks and foods. Yet the scientific evidence described in this fact sheet links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases.

        https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/aspartame-weight-gain/

        Of course, your pet theory may obscure all that.

        • Replies: @iffen
        I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        Excellent observation and I can tell you why that it's that way. Arguing over theories is more or less wide open and eternal. About the only discussion that can be had about hard evidence is whether it exists or not.
        , @dfordoom

        During the time I’ve been reading and commenting at UR, I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.
         
        It's amusing that right-wingers like to mock liberals for being irrational but right-wingers are addicted to wild theories based on a mixture of emotion, blind prejudice, wish fulfilment fantasies and magical thinking.

        The truth is that nobody is interested in hard evidence. We all believe what we want to believe based on whether it's consistent with our existing prejudices and our emotions.
        , @Rosie

        During the time I’ve been reading and commenting at UR, I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.
         
        I've been beating this drum re the WQ for years.
      186. @dfordoom

        Dr. Sigmund Freud and his contemporaries were not sociologists, they were medical doctors.
         
        They were sure as hell not scientists. There's not a shred of science in Freudianism.

        Your point about Darwin playing a major rôle in the destruction of civilisation is however well taken.

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.

        Darwinian (and sexual/social) selection explains how we got the modern West in the first place.  A great deal of it was ruthless selection against violent tendencies, by executing the violent and removing their inherited traits from the gene pool.

        Darwin started (a) the process of explaining to us how we came to BE us.  Part and parcel of understanding that is also (b) understanding how we can be UN-done, and what (c) we need to do to prevent it.  It appears that (b) is being exploited all too effectively by our enemies.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.

        Explain the Michelson-Morly experiment results, then.  Charismatic fuzzy thinkers have always done damage; they don’t need physics.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.

        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.

        Perhaps it’s time to require people to have a degree in STEM to talk about science to the public.  That will get rid of the illiterate and innumerate journalists writing garbage.

        • Replies: @dfordoom


        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.
         
        I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don't for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn't deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people. People need to feel that their lives and the universe itself mean something. The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating. I'm not arguing about the truths of these scientific theories. I agree with you that they're almost certainly true. I'm arguing about their psychological effect on people. If they have a negative psychological effect on people then this will undermine civilisation.
      187. @Intelligent Dasein
        Just for the record, I've already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938

        I know I’ve proposed the same thing, and I’m sure it was well over a month ago.

      188. @Intelligent Dasein
        Just for the record, I've already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938

        Sadly I do not often have time to read every comment, but the link to your comment is appreciated.

      189. “They were sure as hell not scientists. There’s not a shred of science in Freudianism.
        Your point about Darwin playing a major rôle in the destruction of civilisation is however well taken.
        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.”

        1. The medical field is the study of the human body, how it works, why it doesn’t and how yo fix. That’s hard science. And that should be a wake-up call — because it has been science credited with objective reality, i.e., how the human body works and what to do when it doesn’t — so when a trained medical professional, a scientist says there’s an id, ego and super-ego — that science of objective realities concerning the balance has credibility. And why psychiatrists are trained as physicians.

        2. I hate to bust our comfort zones, but Dr. Charles Darwin is central to deconstructing objective reality by making arguments to justify his theory for which the evidence remains — a zillion missing links, as those who are trained as — wait for it — evolutionary anthropologists, biologists . . . have spun analytics to support the core theory that species jump is real. That early humans did not in fact pair bond but acted in accordance with their baser instincts to produce and survive. That our notions of marriage are not really supported by science. That is the legacy, well one of many left to us by Dr. Darwin.

      190. @Jay Fink
        I think if Americans from 50 years ago travelled to today they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won't be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture....that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.

        “they would be shocked at how big people are. They would notice the obesity right away. This won’t be popular here but the overly muscular men would look downright scary to them.They would get a sense, just by looking at people, that something went really wrong in the culture….that we lost our civility. They would feel a lot of excess masculine energy from both men and women.”

        Yes. The men in action movies have for some time looked frightening to me, obviously on steroids; they seem to be designed to appeal to gay men, certainly not most women. I remember seeing a photo of young men in WWII without their shirts. They were uniformly slim and wiry, not hugely muscular or fat. I seldom see young men who look like that now.

        The obesity in women seems odd, too. I see too many younger women with fat bellies and small breasts, as if they have too much testosterone, although they don’t seem masculinized otherwise as far as hairiness or deep voices.

        Has anyone considered the possibilty that a lifetime of hormone birth control could be what’s going on? It imitates pregnancy. Somewhere I read that research had shown that if a woman diets during pregnancy to keep her weight down, her baby will end up smaller but the mother will still put on fat, because her body thinks she is in danger of starving and wants to make sure she can nurse the baby if famine strikes. The advent of birth control pills coincides roughly with the rise of obesity in the West. One would think that the pill would add fat in the usual feminine depots, though, but the women I see now look almost pregnant. Very odd.

        During my time tutoring young black athletes, they were at pains to inform me that black men don’t really like sloppy fat women, but prefer small waists and big booties. But black men have more testosterone which makes them determined to have sex with someone no matter what. I read once about a man who went on testosterone and wrote about the experience. The first thing he noticed was that >everyone< started to look sexier. White guys seem very sad now, reduced to pointing out the ugliness of women around them instead of having practice sex with said women who might be happy to oblige them. Hate to sound crass, but it's true. Young blacks at least seem to be having some fun, between shooting up the joint and actually having sexual relations with actual women, at least until they get put in jail.

      191. @iffen
        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?

        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        • Replies: @res

        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.
         
        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the "gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students" add? They seem more value destroying than value adding to me.

        I think iffen made that point clear with "identify as evil and work to destroy." Not sure why you glossed over that implication.
        , @iffen
        Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        LOL

        I forgot to add to my comment that I tend to think of the humanities as a sort of anti-thesis to theology. Also, needless to say, I consider the "real" humanities to be extremely worthwhile and valuable fields of scholarship.
      192. @Rosie

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
         
        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the “gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students” add? They seem more value destroying than value adding to me.

        I think iffen made that point clear with “identify as evil and work to destroy.” Not sure why you glossed over that implication.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Rosie can, and frequently does, defend and explain her opinions, but I don't believe that it was her intention.
        , @Rosie

        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the “gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students” add?
         
        They don't add anything. Unfortunately, these themes are all mixed up with the humanities now.

        Hence...

        https://www.sas.upenn.edu/gsws/publications/2018/shakespeare-and-queer-theory

        What is needed is a very thorough deep clean with, perhaps with goo-gone followed by a bleach rinse.
      193. @Rosie

        But the engineers and other STEM people create and build all the stuff that the gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students identify as evil and work to destroy. What would they do without engineers?
         
        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.

        LOL

        I forgot to add to my comment that I tend to think of the humanities as a sort of anti-thesis to theology. Also, needless to say, I consider the “real” humanities to be extremely worthwhile and valuable fields of scholarship.

      194. @res

        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.
         
        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the "gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students" add? They seem more value destroying than value adding to me.

        I think iffen made that point clear with "identify as evil and work to destroy." Not sure why you glossed over that implication.

        Rosie can, and frequently does, defend and explain her opinions, but I don’t believe that it was her intention.

        • Thanks: Rosie
      195. @Sparkon
        During the time I've been reading and commenting at UR, I've noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products.
         
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

        Aspartame and other calorie-free sugar substitutes can change the way a body processes fat and likely prompt diabetes and obesity, just like real sugar does. New evidence from a study of 450,000 Europeans suggests that drinking two artificially-sweetened soft drinks a day is linked with increased risk of early death.
         
        https://www.businessinsider.com/aspartame-sugar-artificial-sweeteners-bad-for-boy-2018-5

        Aspartame, the world’s most popular sugar substitute, is found in thousands of sugar-free, low-sugar and so-called “diet” drinks and foods. Yet the scientific evidence described in this fact sheet links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases.
         
        https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/aspartame-weight-gain/


        Of course, your pet theory may obscure all that.

        I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        Excellent observation and I can tell you why that it’s that way. Arguing over theories is more or less wide open and eternal. About the only discussion that can be had about hard evidence is whether it exists or not.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        About the only discussion that can be had about hard evidence is whether it exists or not.
         
        Also hard evidence is unreliable. It doesn't always tell us that we want to hear. If you want to believe for example that eating meat is really really bad for people's health what do you do if the hard evidence stubbornly refuses to support your case? You ignore the hard evidence and look for a really cool theory to explain it away.
      196. @EliteCommInc.
        "The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice."


        It is rational,


        if you want to live for yourself
        simply are unable to manage it financially (yet history strongly suggests that poverty is no barrier to raising successful children)

        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is. I desired that headache. And the satisfaction that my life would be extended through a son - grrr. Even seriel killers have children -- really depressing.

        Laugh. There are plenty of rational reasons to have children, family, community, national maintenance -- what we are seeing is the downward pressure on commitment of self to a larger ethos of sacrifice (by choice) to the greater good of the same.

        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is.

        Speak it brother! While in theory I could still father children, at my age (50) and economic level (statistical mean) and social activity level (nil), the odds of me finding an appealing young woman who wants to bear my children are pretty much non-existent, and children represent the only kind of immortality to which we can *know* we have access: bloodline immortality.

        Afterlives are all well and good if real, but there’s really no way to know short of dying, and if you’re wrong you’ll never know at all. Not terribly encouraging or motivating, that. As things stand now, my investment in the future ends when I die. What happens after that doesn’t concern me. A people which hopes to survive can’t afford for that perspective to become common.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Even if you don't have kids, you probably have nieces and nephews. If not that, then cousins who will have your second cousins.
      197. @Sparkon
        During the time I've been reading and commenting at UR, I've noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products.
         
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

        Aspartame and other calorie-free sugar substitutes can change the way a body processes fat and likely prompt diabetes and obesity, just like real sugar does. New evidence from a study of 450,000 Europeans suggests that drinking two artificially-sweetened soft drinks a day is linked with increased risk of early death.
         
        https://www.businessinsider.com/aspartame-sugar-artificial-sweeteners-bad-for-boy-2018-5

        Aspartame, the world’s most popular sugar substitute, is found in thousands of sugar-free, low-sugar and so-called “diet” drinks and foods. Yet the scientific evidence described in this fact sheet links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases.
         
        https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/aspartame-weight-gain/


        Of course, your pet theory may obscure all that.

        During the time I’ve been reading and commenting at UR, I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        It’s amusing that right-wingers like to mock liberals for being irrational but right-wingers are addicted to wild theories based on a mixture of emotion, blind prejudice, wish fulfilment fantasies and magical thinking.

        The truth is that nobody is interested in hard evidence. We all believe what we want to believe based on whether it’s consistent with our existing prejudices and our emotions.

      198. @Mr. Rational

        Of course it could be objected that Darwinism was not the big problem. The big problem was Social Darwinism, which is what happened when non-scientists got hold of his theory. But Darwinism itself was anti-civilisational.
         
        Darwinian (and sexual/social) selection explains how we got the modern West in the first place.  A great deal of it was ruthless selection against violent tendencies, by executing the violent and removing their inherited traits from the gene pool.

        Darwin started (a) the process of explaining to us how we came to BE us.  Part and parcel of understanding that is also (b) understanding how we can be UN-done, and what (c) we need to do to prevent it.  It appears that (b) is being exploited all too effectively by our enemies.

        Much the same happened with relativity. It did its real damage when non-physicists got hold of it.
         
        Explain the Michelson-Morly experiment results, then.  Charismatic fuzzy thinkers have always done damage; they don't need physics.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn't write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.

        Perhaps it's time to require people to have a degree in STEM to talk about science to the public.  That will get rid of the illiterate and innumerate journalists writing garbage.

        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.

        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.

        I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don’t for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn’t deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people. People need to feel that their lives and the universe itself mean something. The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating. I’m not arguing about the truths of these scientific theories. I agree with you that they’re almost certainly true. I’m arguing about their psychological effect on people. If they have a negative psychological effect on people then this will undermine civilisation.

        • Replies: @iffen
        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?
        , @Mr. Rational

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn’t deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people.
         
        Christians already believe it's hostile (run more or less by Satan).  Why is it a problem if people believe it's merely indifferent?

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating.
         
        So what's your solution?  Restrict general science education to "truths suitable for children"?
        , @Audacious Epigone
        These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        ...

        The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.


        This is why I'm such a big proponent of Stoicism, a philosophical system of ethics that is able to acknowledge the former without concluding the latter.
      199. @dfordoom


        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.
         
        I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don't for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn't deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people. People need to feel that their lives and the universe itself mean something. The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating. I'm not arguing about the truths of these scientific theories. I agree with you that they're almost certainly true. I'm arguing about their psychological effect on people. If they have a negative psychological effect on people then this will undermine civilisation.

        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?

        • Replies: @dfordoom


        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.
         
        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?
         
        You're missing my point. If people have the fairytale taken away from them they will become pessimistic, selfish and hedonistic because there's no point to anything. Because the human brain is not wired to accept a meaningless indifferent and hostile universe. Our brains are wired to find meaning and purpose in things. Ironically it's evolution that gave us such brains.

        You personally might not need the fairytale. I personally might not need the fairytale. But it seems that without a fairytale a very significant number of people will malfunction psychologically, and society will begin to collapse.

        The trouble with atheists is that they don't seem to comprehend that most people are just not psychologically equipped for atheism. They either become miserable and dysfunctional or they start looking for a new fairytale. Atheists have an arrogant disregard for the fact that atheism is really bad for most people.

        I personally don't care. The universe doesn't give a damn about me and I don't give a damn about the universe. I'm not into fairytales. But I do understand that I'm in a minority. The response of most people to atheism is to reject it and look for a substitute religion, a substitute fairytale. Or they turn to alcohol, drugs, etc.
        , @silviosilver

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?
         
        If it makes you happier - if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life - why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.

        Atheists do actually play a useful social role, though, in that they help ease people out of hardcore fundamental religious beliefs. If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you're going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines. If you pull out of the debate early enough, you can still keep the good bits - which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.
      200. “I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don’t for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.”

        relativity: can be duplicated and predictive

        quantuum mechanics can be duplicated and predictive

        —– natural selection: cannot be duplicated or predictive — as species, especially the human species select least viable natural choices all the time and those same choices succeed. The human mind’s ability to create new meaning, respond to new meaning and defy predictive behaviors despite static environment — upends natural selective explainations.

      201. @Anonymousse

        career, travel, and lifestyle
         
        “Career” is the name for what healthy people do to earn money.

        “Travel” is mostly an expensive status marker - the primary form of crass consumerism on a limitless scale that is still socially irreproachable for SWPLs

        “Lifestyle” is generally just a marketing euphemism for products and brands that deracinated people identify with...

        So REALLY we’re being encouraged to give away our patrimony for what amounts to “consumption, consumption, and consumption.”

        Always ennobling stuff from our libertarian friends. Accidentally insightful though.

        Perspicacious observation about travel. It’s often held up as some sort of anti-consumerist virtue when it is merely another form of conspicuous, discretionary consumption. Instead of purchasing a physical pre-packaged product, they’re purchasing a pre-packaged experience. It’s like going to a sports game, but it’s often treated as something significantly different.

        Do it if it’s what you want to do, but know what it is you’re doing.

        • Replies: @res

        Perspicacious observation about travel. It’s often held up as some sort of anti-consumerist virtue when it is merely another form of conspicuous, discretionary consumption. Instead of purchasing a physical pre-packaged product, they’re purchasing a pre-packaged experience. It’s like going to a sports game, but it’s often treated as something significantly different.
         
        Very true. But worth clarifying that there are different types of travel. Some axes worth considering.

        - Pre-packaged vs. free form.
        - Doing what everyone else does (which can be a good thing, there is a reason some of those experiences are considered classics) vs. blazing your own trail.
        - Resource intensiveness vs. experience intensiveness. Riding the Pan-American highway on your bike while camping or living with locals is very different from flying to Brazil for a weekend and staying in a luxury hotel.

        Do it if it’s what you want to do, but know what it is you’re doing.
         
        Amen. My personal favorite here is the people who brag about extensive international travel (especially of the high travel distance to destination time variety) and then go on about CO2 emissions.
      202. @dfordoom

        does the quotidian degeneracy of the contemporary Western world have to bust through institutions and organizations standing in opposition to it like a battering ram against a fortified gate,
         
        Exactly what institutions and organizations are standing in opposition to it?

        Touche.

      203. @Dumbo
        That doesn't seem much different than legalized prostitution. How much does prostitution affect white fertility in the West? Not much, I would think.

        Now educating women, that certainly reduces fertility, and Persian women are on average more educated (smarter?) than Arab ones.

        It's actually a big problem, how to achieve a balance between some female education, and women not having babies anymore. Or maybe female education is overvalued? I don't know.

        Educational attainment is inversely correlated with fertility among women like no other variable is. Nothing else comes close.

      204. @MikeatMikedotMike
        I had planned to reply to this comment a few days ago, but forgot.

        "Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification."

        First, China isn't a good example because they had a state mandated 1 child policy for 35 years. While it was likely impossible to enforce comprehensively, that by itself was enough to drive down total fertility. Perhaps I'm wrong but Japan seems to have come under quite a bit of Western influence since WWII, and they have quite a pornography following and also practice abortion (although neither to the extent of the US)

        Secondly, low fertility in other parts of the world does not disprove subversive influences in the West. I know little about Iran other than I don't want to go to war with them, but their low fertility doesn't somehow disprove the subversive efforts in the West.

        "The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever."

        Again, the second sentence doesn't prove the first, or even relate to it at all. Off the point, but I am curious to read about how sexualized imagery is supposed to assist in preventing obesity, seeing as most of us here are in agreement that ubiquitous sexual imagery has almost nothing but a negative effect upon people who consume it.

        To AE:

        "Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. "

        With instant access to information via the internet, it has never been easier to optimize one's life in all sorts of ways. Specific to fitness, for most people an hour of exercise doesn't offset the ill effects of remaining sedentary for 8-12 hours a day. Most of the fitness industry is comprised of "get fit quick" fads and supplement scams. We have also been lied to about what is to be considered correct nutrition via the ridiculous "food pyramid," the vilification of animal fats, and steered into a detrimental dependency upon carbohydrate based foods, which we are finally coming to realize are the cause of a great many serious health problems. I guess your point was to provide an example of how subversive efforts are overstated? 100 years ago (((clever))) marketers were able to convince people that smoking was healthy in general and enhanced femininity for women specifically. Oops!

        Few people are doing what they think they should be doing to achieve the results they want. I think psychology is a major reason why. That doesn’t just apply to not doing compound movements at the gym, it also has to do with wasting time on cheap social media dopamine hits, etc.

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        Considering you plastered my name at the top of your blog post to promote a false premise - that there is no concerted effort to drive down white fertility - I'm a bit surprised to get such a weak and thoughtless reply.

        It is unfortunate that your fear of being ADL'd or whatever has made you somewhat dishonest in your presentation of ideas. If you can't reconcile your privacy concerns with telling the truth then quitting the blog would be better than continuing to promote falsehoods.
      205. @iffen
        I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        Excellent observation and I can tell you why that it's that way. Arguing over theories is more or less wide open and eternal. About the only discussion that can be had about hard evidence is whether it exists or not.

        About the only discussion that can be had about hard evidence is whether it exists or not.

        Also hard evidence is unreliable. It doesn’t always tell us that we want to hear. If you want to believe for example that eating meat is really really bad for people’s health what do you do if the hard evidence stubbornly refuses to support your case? You ignore the hard evidence and look for a really cool theory to explain it away.

      206. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan
        @ Audacious

        Is it really that easy to be fit, even for a white guy in America?

        Food deserts are a real thing, and they're the product of almost a century of deliberate policies by our state-capitalist masters.

        The system really is geared to making you fatter if you're poorer.

        I was lucky - my part of the country has better local food options. If you're in Appalachia somewhere, though, you're stuck with whatever Wally World wants to feed you. Unless you know how to grow your own fruit and vegetables.

        A person can eat well at WalMart.

        Easy in the sense that the tools available are more accessible than ever. There is a lot of competition for our time and attention, though, so fitness (among other laudable things) often gets edged out.

        • Replies: @iffen
        A person can eat well at WalMart.

        Obviously you have never stood in line at the deli trying to get service.
      207. @Dumbo

        Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

         
        So full of themselves that even call their magazine "Reason". Libertarians are useless. I have a libertarian friend. Always cheering for open borders, liberation of drugs, and singing the beauties of corporate capitalism and globalist culture. At least leftists favor (in theory) some form of benefits for workers and social protection for those less well-off.

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.
         
        It is natural to want to conserve energy. If we don't need to do physical labor, then we just sleep and eat. Today we just have too much food and too little need to move by ourselves. Gyms are a poor substitute for more natural activities. People don't go to the gym for health reasons but to become more attractive for the other (or same) sex. However being overweight is usually a result of having bad discipline. Those people who are morbidly obese, I don't even understand how they can get to that size. Just stop eating so much sugar, idiot.
      208. @EliteCommInc.
        "The big problem we face is that having very small numbers of children is an entirely rational choice."


        It is rational,


        if you want to live for yourself
        simply are unable to manage it financially (yet history strongly suggests that poverty is no barrier to raising successful children)

        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is. I desired that headache. And the satisfaction that my life would be extended through a son - grrr. Even seriel killers have children -- really depressing.

        Laugh. There are plenty of rational reasons to have children, family, community, national maintenance -- what we are seeing is the downward pressure on commitment of self to a larger ethos of sacrifice (by choice) to the greater good of the same.

        It doesn’t mean your life is a failure. It has trouble with the categorical imperative, but a healthy civilization doesn’t need everybody breeding. It does need propagating to be the celebrated, expected norm, though.

        • Agree: iffen
      209. @AaronB
        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere - just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it's done for the sake of some future goal.

        Play also isn't concerned with helping us survive, whereas most activities in the West are about improving our skills and ability to survive. But why survive, if not so you can play?

        There are philosophies that put play at the center of life. John Huizinga, the famous historian, wrote a book about the importance of play in culture.

        But for play to become important again, we would need to take life less seriously - seriousness comes from trying to survive.

        If survival is most important to you, you will be very serious - even gloomy - and your life will be centered around work, not play, and always some future goal or self-improvement that will help you survive.

        So for play to be central again in the West, we have to change our ideas about death. Right now we are terrified of it, so we can't play. We can only work. But some Eastern philosophies think that the world of separate things is kind of like an illusion, and that your ego is really not this separate thing that can die, but really just a part of everything, and everything cannot die, only change. So death is an illusion.

        Some Western thinkers thought along these lines as well. If we can start thinking just a little bit more like this again, we might appreciate play.

        Kids are a great, visceral reminder of the importance of–and joy that comes from–play.

      210. @Audacious Epigone
        Few people are doing what they think they should be doing to achieve the results they want. I think psychology is a major reason why. That doesn't just apply to not doing compound movements at the gym, it also has to do with wasting time on cheap social media dopamine hits, etc.

        Considering you plastered my name at the top of your blog post to promote a false premise – that there is no concerted effort to drive down white fertility – I’m a bit surprised to get such a weak and thoughtless reply.

        It is unfortunate that your fear of being ADL’d or whatever has made you somewhat dishonest in your presentation of ideas. If you can’t reconcile your privacy concerns with telling the truth then quitting the blog would be better than continuing to promote falsehoods.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        It's an interesting discussion. I don't disagree that there is, if not a concerted effort to reduce white fertility, then at least a preference among elites that it declines. My intention in excerpting your comment that 216 was reacting to was to provide context. You of course may be correct and 216 and I incorrect--that's what this thread, approaching 300 comments, is about hashing out.

        The psychological driver seems to be stronger, though. Fertility declines track a lack of assertiveness/extraversion. Fertility is low in wealthy Western Europe, the US, and East Asia, but it's also low in among relatively poor American Indians.

        The biggest issue I have with the idea that Jews are subversively trying to explicitly lower white fertility is that (non-Orthodox) Jewish fertility has dropped even faster than white gentile fertility has. My perception is that affluent, liberal whites--who are disproportionately Jewish--flourish in and prefer the trappings and consequences of a society where fertility is depressed across the board.
      211. @iffen
        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?

        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?

        You’re missing my point. If people have the fairytale taken away from them they will become pessimistic, selfish and hedonistic because there’s no point to anything. Because the human brain is not wired to accept a meaningless indifferent and hostile universe. Our brains are wired to find meaning and purpose in things. Ironically it’s evolution that gave us such brains.

        You personally might not need the fairytale. I personally might not need the fairytale. But it seems that without a fairytale a very significant number of people will malfunction psychologically, and society will begin to collapse.

        The trouble with atheists is that they don’t seem to comprehend that most people are just not psychologically equipped for atheism. They either become miserable and dysfunctional or they start looking for a new fairytale. Atheists have an arrogant disregard for the fact that atheism is really bad for most people.

        I personally don’t care. The universe doesn’t give a damn about me and I don’t give a damn about the universe. I’m not into fairytales. But I do understand that I’m in a minority. The response of most people to atheism is to reject it and look for a substitute religion, a substitute fairytale. Or they turn to alcohol, drugs, etc.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Or they turn to alcohol, drugs, etc.

        Mormonism or MD 20/20? Hmmm.

        Jehovah's Witness or oxycontin? Hmmm.

        Pyramid power or puffing smoke? Hmmm.
      212. @Rosie

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.
         
        Good grief. You don't really have any business telling people what they can and can't study. Of course, society can choose not to subsidize education it considers frivolous, but that's another story. I don't know why so many around here have it out for liberal arts education. It really is the foundation for building a loyal elite that takes pride in the people's history and culture. It's certainly not just for engineers, who are, frankly, not particularly profound and/or inquisitive souls.

        “Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study.”

        I do if I’m helping to pay for it.

        • Agree: Mr. Rational
        • Replies: @Rosie

        I do if I’m helping to pay for it.
         
        In that case, you're certainly within your rights to object to helping pay for it, but not to dictate to others what they will study. It's good politics to oppose rather than support coercion whenever possible. "Don't make me pay for this" is much better than "Let me tell you what you may and may not study."
      213. @iffen
        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?

        If it makes you happier – if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life – why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.

        Atheists do actually play a useful social role, though, in that they help ease people out of hardcore fundamental religious beliefs. If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you’re going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines. If you pull out of the debate early enough, you can still keep the good bits – which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        If it makes you happier – if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life – why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.
         
        And for some reason atheists just can't see it. Atheists just do not understand what makes people tick. They're too busy preening themselves on their intellectual superiority.

        If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you’re going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines.
         
        The problem with Darwinism is that it didn't just undermine traditional religious belief. It undermined any belief at all in an ordered universe with meaning and purpose. Even a lukewarm cultural Christianity became untenable.

        which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.
         
        Atheists can't help themselves. They're zealots. They're worse than Jehovah's Witnesses.

        I'm an agnostic but I'm pragmatic about belief. Anything that gets you through the night.

        Right-wing atheists are the saddest. Left-wing atheists have invented alternative belief systems to provide meaning and purpose - Marxism, social justice, environmentalism. Right-wing atheists have nothing to offer.
      214. @res

        The world needs all kinds. Yes, diversity (of the right kind) really is a strength.
         
        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the "gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students" add? They seem more value destroying than value adding to me.

        I think iffen made that point clear with "identify as evil and work to destroy." Not sure why you glossed over that implication.

        The old school humanities majors can definitely add value. What value do the “gender studies, queer basket weaving studies, etc. students” add?

        They don’t add anything. Unfortunately, these themes are all mixed up with the humanities now.

        Hence…

        https://www.sas.upenn.edu/gsws/publications/2018/shakespeare-and-queer-theory

        What is needed is a very thorough deep clean with, perhaps with goo-gone followed by a bleach rinse.

      215. @Sparkon
        During the time I've been reading and commenting at UR, I've noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        America’s obesity epidemic has gathered much media attention recently. A rise in the percent of the population who are obese coincides with an increase in the widespread use of non-caloric artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame (e.g., Diet Coke) and sucralose (e.g., Pepsi One), in food products.
         
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

        Aspartame and other calorie-free sugar substitutes can change the way a body processes fat and likely prompt diabetes and obesity, just like real sugar does. New evidence from a study of 450,000 Europeans suggests that drinking two artificially-sweetened soft drinks a day is linked with increased risk of early death.
         
        https://www.businessinsider.com/aspartame-sugar-artificial-sweeteners-bad-for-boy-2018-5

        Aspartame, the world’s most popular sugar substitute, is found in thousands of sugar-free, low-sugar and so-called “diet” drinks and foods. Yet the scientific evidence described in this fact sheet links aspartame to weight gain, increased appetite, diabetes, metabolic derangement and obesity-related diseases.
         
        https://usrtk.org/sweeteners/aspartame-weight-gain/


        Of course, your pet theory may obscure all that.

        During the time I’ve been reading and commenting at UR, I’ve noticed that a common and recurring theme is widespread belief in theories over hard evidence.

        I’ve been beating this drum re the WQ for years.

      216. @MikeatMikedotMike
        "Good grief. You don’t really have any business telling people what they can and can’t study."

        I do if I'm helping to pay for it.

        I do if I’m helping to pay for it.

        In that case, you’re certainly within your rights to object to helping pay for it, but not to dictate to others what they will study. It’s good politics to oppose rather than support coercion whenever possible. “Don’t make me pay for this” is much better than “Let me tell you what you may and may not study.”

      217. “It doesn’t mean your life is a failure. It has trouble with the categorical imperative, but a healthy civilization doesn’t need everybody breeding. It does need propagating to be the celebrated, expected norm, though”

        Hmmmm,

        I like to consider the matter head on. That part of my life – failure. It was an unachieved goal. I make no pretense about it.

        And I would agree, that not everyone needs to breed — however, the US needs to have citizens who breed and train their children to embrace their country, preferably in the saving grace of Christ, but as responsible citizens nonetheless.

      218. @Intelligent Dasein
        Just for the record, I've already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938

        I like your idea of saving the economy. Reason why I did not reply, is because I didn’t see your comment.

        Some parts of your theory can be improved. For instance wages adjusted for inflation. This is only fair to some degree, i.e., for people who just make ends meet.

        So suppose that your salary is 1000 USD per month, which you need in full to pay for expenses. Now suppose the yearly inflation is 2%, then you need in the next year 1000*1,02=1020 USD/ month to pay for your expenses (alternative is that you end up being 20 USD in debt). So there wage adjustment for inflation is fair.

        But now suppose your salary is 10000 USD per month, and you pay 1000 USD per month for expenses. Inflation is 2%, and your wages are ‘adjusted’ for inflation. In the next year your salary will then be 10000*1,02=10200 USD, meaning that you save 200-20=180 USD more per month due to wage adjusted inflation.

        Now people with high salaries have higher expenses, so one needs to take that into account too (maybe). But the point is, as long as the person who earns 10000 USD per month is able to save more money vs the person who earns 1000 USD per month (which is highly likely), the person who earns 10000 USD will be better of when his wages are adjusted for inflation than the person who earns 1000 USD per month.

        One of the appalling things of Unions in NL is that they always ask for a same percentage in pay rise over all the people they represent (high and low salary). Usually those with low salary really need a wage increase (far more than those who have a high salary), and they are the ones most loyal to the unions. But in the end they always get a same percentage in wage increase (if the union was succesful in negotiating) as those with a high salary, suggesting to their members that this is ‘fair’ game. As the math example shows, it is not.

        Fair could be something like: the tax office that calculates everyone’s monthly expenses, and only adjust wages for inflation based on expenses.

        Although that would also not be totally fair because then people who are great spenders, are more compensated then those who spend less, but have the same salary.

        Why not just get rid of this all, and demand a basic income, which would guarantee for everyone that they can live their life ‘decently’ (this also needs to be defined, but for sake of length of my reply, I will skip it). And for those who want to have more than decency, for instance ‘luxury’ they can always work more, although inflation might lead to losses of savings. But then: why work for money, if even without work you can have a decent life?

        • Replies: @iffen
        Why not just get rid of this all, and demand a basic income, which would guarantee for everyone that they can live their life ‘decently’ (this also needs to be defined

        I'm all in on the idea of a UBI, but it needs to be a restricted UBI. In other words, you will receive an income but society will "take back" %s to pay for things like your retirement and health care. You will not be allowed to blow your income on garbage and then dump yourself upon everyone else.
      219. @silviosilver

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?
         
        If it makes you happier - if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life - why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.

        Atheists do actually play a useful social role, though, in that they help ease people out of hardcore fundamental religious beliefs. If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you're going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines. If you pull out of the debate early enough, you can still keep the good bits - which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.

        If it makes you happier – if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life – why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.

        And for some reason atheists just can’t see it. Atheists just do not understand what makes people tick. They’re too busy preening themselves on their intellectual superiority.

        If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you’re going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines.

        The problem with Darwinism is that it didn’t just undermine traditional religious belief. It undermined any belief at all in an ordered universe with meaning and purpose. Even a lukewarm cultural Christianity became untenable.

        which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.

        Atheists can’t help themselves. They’re zealots. They’re worse than Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        I’m an agnostic but I’m pragmatic about belief. Anything that gets you through the night.

        Right-wing atheists are the saddest. Left-wing atheists have invented alternative belief systems to provide meaning and purpose – Marxism, social justice, environmentalism. Right-wing atheists have nothing to offer.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        Atheists can’t help themselves. They’re zealots.
         
        Tell me just how zealous the atheists here have been.  You probably just learned of a new one who hadn't said anything until you made an issue of it.

        They’re worse than Jehovah’s Witnesses.
         
        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and "The God Delusion"?

        Please, don't make me laugh THAT hard.  I don't want a hernia.
        , @iffen
        I didn't disparage religion or people who are religious. All things considered, religion is likely a plus.

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that's okay with me.
      220. @dfordoom


        we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.
         
        We do live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        What do you want?

        Choose a fairytale of your choice?
         
        You're missing my point. If people have the fairytale taken away from them they will become pessimistic, selfish and hedonistic because there's no point to anything. Because the human brain is not wired to accept a meaningless indifferent and hostile universe. Our brains are wired to find meaning and purpose in things. Ironically it's evolution that gave us such brains.

        You personally might not need the fairytale. I personally might not need the fairytale. But it seems that without a fairytale a very significant number of people will malfunction psychologically, and society will begin to collapse.

        The trouble with atheists is that they don't seem to comprehend that most people are just not psychologically equipped for atheism. They either become miserable and dysfunctional or they start looking for a new fairytale. Atheists have an arrogant disregard for the fact that atheism is really bad for most people.

        I personally don't care. The universe doesn't give a damn about me and I don't give a damn about the universe. I'm not into fairytales. But I do understand that I'm in a minority. The response of most people to atheism is to reject it and look for a substitute religion, a substitute fairytale. Or they turn to alcohol, drugs, etc.

        Or they turn to alcohol, drugs, etc.

        Mormonism or MD 20/20? Hmmm.

        Jehovah’s Witness or oxycontin? Hmmm.

        Pyramid power or puffing smoke? Hmmm.

      221. @Willem
        I like your idea of saving the economy. Reason why I did not reply, is because I didn’t see your comment.

        Some parts of your theory can be improved. For instance wages adjusted for inflation. This is only fair to some degree, i.e., for people who just make ends meet.

        So suppose that your salary is 1000 USD per month, which you need in full to pay for expenses. Now suppose the yearly inflation is 2%, then you need in the next year 1000*1,02=1020 USD/ month to pay for your expenses (alternative is that you end up being 20 USD in debt). So there wage adjustment for inflation is fair.

        But now suppose your salary is 10000 USD per month, and you pay 1000 USD per month for expenses. Inflation is 2%, and your wages are ‘adjusted’ for inflation. In the next year your salary will then be 10000*1,02=10200 USD, meaning that you save 200-20=180 USD more per month due to wage adjusted inflation.

        Now people with high salaries have higher expenses, so one needs to take that into account too (maybe). But the point is, as long as the person who earns 10000 USD per month is able to save more money vs the person who earns 1000 USD per month (which is highly likely), the person who earns 10000 USD will be better of when his wages are adjusted for inflation than the person who earns 1000 USD per month.

        One of the appalling things of Unions in NL is that they always ask for a same percentage in pay rise over all the people they represent (high and low salary). Usually those with low salary really need a wage increase (far more than those who have a high salary), and they are the ones most loyal to the unions. But in the end they always get a same percentage in wage increase (if the union was succesful in negotiating) as those with a high salary, suggesting to their members that this is ‘fair’ game. As the math example shows, it is not.

        Fair could be something like: the tax office that calculates everyone’s monthly expenses, and only adjust wages for inflation based on expenses.

        Although that would also not be totally fair because then people who are great spenders, are more compensated then those who spend less, but have the same salary.

        Why not just get rid of this all, and demand a basic income, which would guarantee for everyone that they can live their life ‘decently’ (this also needs to be defined, but for sake of length of my reply, I will skip it). And for those who want to have more than decency, for instance ‘luxury’ they can always work more, although inflation might lead to losses of savings. But then: why work for money, if even without work you can have a decent life?

        Why not just get rid of this all, and demand a basic income, which would guarantee for everyone that they can live their life ‘decently’ (this also needs to be defined

        I’m all in on the idea of a UBI, but it needs to be a restricted UBI. In other words, you will receive an income but society will “take back” %s to pay for things like your retirement and health care. You will not be allowed to blow your income on garbage and then dump yourself upon everyone else.

      222. @Audacious Epigone
        A person can eat well at WalMart.

        Easy in the sense that the tools available are more accessible than ever. There is a lot of competition for our time and attention, though, so fitness (among other laudable things) often gets edged out.

        A person can eat well at WalMart.

        Obviously you have never stood in line at the deli trying to get service.

      223. @Audacious Epigone
        Perspicacious observation about travel. It's often held up as some sort of anti-consumerist virtue when it is merely another form of conspicuous, discretionary consumption. Instead of purchasing a physical pre-packaged product, they're purchasing a pre-packaged experience. It's like going to a sports game, but it's often treated as something significantly different.

        Do it if it's what you want to do, but know what it is you're doing.

        Perspicacious observation about travel. It’s often held up as some sort of anti-consumerist virtue when it is merely another form of conspicuous, discretionary consumption. Instead of purchasing a physical pre-packaged product, they’re purchasing a pre-packaged experience. It’s like going to a sports game, but it’s often treated as something significantly different.

        Very true. But worth clarifying that there are different types of travel. Some axes worth considering.

        – Pre-packaged vs. free form.
        – Doing what everyone else does (which can be a good thing, there is a reason some of those experiences are considered classics) vs. blazing your own trail.
        – Resource intensiveness vs. experience intensiveness. Riding the Pan-American highway on your bike while camping or living with locals is very different from flying to Brazil for a weekend and staying in a luxury hotel.

        Do it if it’s what you want to do, but know what it is you’re doing.

        Amen. My personal favorite here is the people who brag about extensive international travel (especially of the high travel distance to destination time variety) and then go on about CO2 emissions.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
      224. @dfordoom


        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.
         
        I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don't for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn't deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people. People need to feel that their lives and the universe itself mean something. The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating. I'm not arguing about the truths of these scientific theories. I agree with you that they're almost certainly true. I'm arguing about their psychological effect on people. If they have a negative psychological effect on people then this will undermine civilisation.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn’t deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people.

        Christians already believe it’s hostile (run more or less by Satan).  Why is it a problem if people believe it’s merely indifferent?

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating.

        So what’s your solution?  Restrict general science education to “truths suitable for children”?

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
        The two of you are arguing about something which neither one of you understands. The search for meaning is not a very important driver of human affairs nor a significant determinator of human happiness. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the reality of (not the "belief in") God. This is what's called onto-theology; it is a metaphysical categorical error that is ironically quite characteristic, not of religion, but of science.

        Now, regarding the truth of Darwinism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it must be stated at the outset that whether or not they are accurate desciptions of reality, their theoretical frameworks are historical develoments that have significance only within the very limited horizon of late Western modernity and for the peculiar type of man formed by that milieu. Outside of that sphere, they are utterly incomprehensible and unsought. This is a completely different question from whether or not they are true in fundamentum---something which is not only not at issue, but which is, in all three cases, demonstrably false from first principles. There can be no clearer proof that science has nothing to with reality than the fact that in its major modern dogmas it has abandoned both causality and objectivity.

        The argument that "quantumn mechanics is true because you're writing your comment on a computer" is a frequently used---and rather lame---rhetorical misdirection designed to salvage some ontic credibility for the scientific worldview based on the heuristic concept of verification through praxis. But unless you are making the bizarre claim that the introduction of quatumn theory not only described but actually reconfigured reality in its own image, then it must be true that my computer in its present state would operate just as it does now regardless of whether or not anyone had ever heard of quantum mechanics, much less believed it to be true. The reality is what it is; quantum mechanics is but one of an infinite number of underdetermined accounts that explain reality after the fact. As a theory it belongs to the "history of thought," not to the nature of existence.

        All science must eventually fall on its sword in just this fashion. It is only its utility as an onto-theological pallative that prevents the picture from becoming visible to anyone who cares to look at it.
      225. @dfordoom

        If it makes you happier – if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life – why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.
         
        And for some reason atheists just can't see it. Atheists just do not understand what makes people tick. They're too busy preening themselves on their intellectual superiority.

        If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you’re going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines.
         
        The problem with Darwinism is that it didn't just undermine traditional religious belief. It undermined any belief at all in an ordered universe with meaning and purpose. Even a lukewarm cultural Christianity became untenable.

        which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.
         
        Atheists can't help themselves. They're zealots. They're worse than Jehovah's Witnesses.

        I'm an agnostic but I'm pragmatic about belief. Anything that gets you through the night.

        Right-wing atheists are the saddest. Left-wing atheists have invented alternative belief systems to provide meaning and purpose - Marxism, social justice, environmentalism. Right-wing atheists have nothing to offer.

        Atheists can’t help themselves. They’re zealots.

        Tell me just how zealous the atheists here have been.  You probably just learned of a new one who hadn’t said anything until you made an issue of it.

        They’re worse than Jehovah’s Witnesses.

        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and “The God Delusion”?

        Please, don’t make me laugh THAT hard.  I don’t want a hernia.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and “The God Delusion”?

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don't have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along. I had a group come by less than a month ago. They asked if they could park in my drive while they canvassed the neighborhood on foot and I told them sure. (I was irked at my neighbors for running wild with their atvs at all hours.)

        One of the funniest incidents in my life was about 30 years ago when I was having some outside work done. The workman was a Holy Roller preacher. Some Witnesses came by while I was outside and engaged me and the preacher who was on a ladder. He came flying down the ladder and said, "Yes sir, I would love to discuss Jesus, let me get to my truck and get my Bible!" Fleeter footed Witnesses you have never seen.
      226. I

        don’t for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        One of the cool things about evolution is, if its true, it demolishes the basis for us trusting our minds to tell us the truth.

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can’t know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.

        The mathematician Goedel demonstrated that every system of proofs must be based on some assumptions from outside the system, and that trying to prove all propositions from within the system must lead to contradiction.

        This is so beautifully illustrated with Darwinism. You must assume that at least when it comes to Darwinism, your mind is telling you the truth. But if you try and prove it from within the system of Darwinism, you get the result that a mind designed for survival cannot be relied on to tell us the truth. So you have to import it as an assumption from outside the system.

        Its so beautiful and elegant.

        Which begs the question – why is Darwinism treated as less of a fiction than religion, when Darwinism itself shows that an evolved mind that produces a theory of evolution cannot be relied on to accurately perceive the truth?

        The funny thing is, that Darwinism can be used as a basis for religion, this makes clear. If we cannot trust our senses and our logic, as Darwinism shows, then we cannot make positive statements about the ultimate nature of truth using logic.

        This opens the door for “faith”. Darwinism demolishes any basis for confidently claiming we “know” there is no God and religion is false. Darwinism restores the mystery of a pre-scientific age.

        Kant’s philosophy did the same thing a bit earlier.

        The interesting question remains, why are modern people so intent on basing their belief in Darwinism on an assumption that cannot be proved from within Darwinism? This gives Darwinism the character of a “faith”.

        So why this faith? I suspect it is bound up with our feeling that this faith is necessary for technology and the power it gives us. If we give up Darwinism, we give up the grand Technological Quest.

        • Replies: @Tulip

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can’t know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.
         
        We can't know that we know, because we don't know that we know, and only knowledge and knowing it was knowledge would suffice to prove we know that we know. That is just Epictetus's epistemic circle.

        You can make the same argument about all knowledge. DesCartes's notion, God cannot be a liar so sense perception is accurate, well, how do we know? Maybe God is a liar, and designed us to mis-perceive the Universe because "we can't handle the truth" and its compassionate, and it will all be made better in the by and by. My sense is that most people can't handle the truth, so that presumably is a result of God's provident design if not evolution.
      227. @AaronB
        Play is activity without purpose, going nowhere - just for the fun of it. It leads to nothing beyond itself. It itself is the point.

        This goes against the old Western values, where nothing has value unless it's done for the sake of some future goal.

        Play also isn't concerned with helping us survive, whereas most activities in the West are about improving our skills and ability to survive. But why survive, if not so you can play?

        There are philosophies that put play at the center of life. John Huizinga, the famous historian, wrote a book about the importance of play in culture.

        But for play to become important again, we would need to take life less seriously - seriousness comes from trying to survive.

        If survival is most important to you, you will be very serious - even gloomy - and your life will be centered around work, not play, and always some future goal or self-improvement that will help you survive.

        So for play to be central again in the West, we have to change our ideas about death. Right now we are terrified of it, so we can't play. We can only work. But some Eastern philosophies think that the world of separate things is kind of like an illusion, and that your ego is really not this separate thing that can die, but really just a part of everything, and everything cannot die, only change. So death is an illusion.

        Some Western thinkers thought along these lines as well. If we can start thinking just a little bit more like this again, we might appreciate play.

        Most of us who are around 70 years of age and grew up on the streets of low income areas in cities spent our youth just playing stick ball, stoop ball, touch football, and walking a mile or more to ball fields to play hardball and also walking to playgrounds to play hours of basketball. We played soldier in lots that were full of dirt and trees. We were peddling our bicycles near every day. These were the bikes that only had one speed so you had to put muscle into your peddling.
        We walked everywhere and for real adventure we would get on the subway going to New York City and then in Manhattan walk many miles to look at all the stores. We were always moving about. All in my crowd were thin. I think those days are gone because when I go back to visit people who live in suburbs and even city neighborhoods I see few kids if any out on the streets playing.
        I’ve noticed too that in homes and in offices when papers are on the floor that most of the time no one bends over to pick them up.

        • Thanks: AaronB
      228. @Mr. Rational

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn’t deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people.
         
        Christians already believe it's hostile (run more or less by Satan).  Why is it a problem if people believe it's merely indifferent?

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating.
         
        So what's your solution?  Restrict general science education to "truths suitable for children"?

        The two of you are arguing about something which neither one of you understands. The search for meaning is not a very important driver of human affairs nor a significant determinator of human happiness. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the reality of (not the “belief in”) God. This is what’s called onto-theology; it is a metaphysical categorical error that is ironically quite characteristic, not of religion, but of science.

        Now, regarding the truth of Darwinism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it must be stated at the outset that whether or not they are accurate desciptions of reality, their theoretical frameworks are historical develoments that have significance only within the very limited horizon of late Western modernity and for the peculiar type of man formed by that milieu. Outside of that sphere, they are utterly incomprehensible and unsought. This is a completely different question from whether or not they are true in fundamentum—something which is not only not at issue, but which is, in all three cases, demonstrably false from first principles. There can be no clearer proof that science has nothing to with reality than the fact that in its major modern dogmas it has abandoned both causality and objectivity.

        The argument that “quantumn mechanics is true because you’re writing your comment on a computer” is a frequently used—and rather lame—rhetorical misdirection designed to salvage some ontic credibility for the scientific worldview based on the heuristic concept of verification through praxis. But unless you are making the bizarre claim that the introduction of quatumn theory not only described but actually reconfigured reality in its own image, then it must be true that my computer in its present state would operate just as it does now regardless of whether or not anyone had ever heard of quantum mechanics, much less believed it to be true. The reality is what it is; quantum mechanics is but one of an infinite number of underdetermined accounts that explain reality after the fact. As a theory it belongs to the “history of thought,” not to the nature of existence.

        All science must eventually fall on its sword in just this fashion. It is only its utility as an onto-theological pallative that prevents the picture from becoming visible to anyone who cares to look at it.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        regarding the truth of Darwinism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it must be stated at the outset that whether or not they are accurate desciptions of reality, their theoretical frameworks are historical develoments that have significance only within the very limited horizon of late Western modernity and for the peculiar type of man formed by that milieu. Outside of that sphere, they are utterly incomprehensible and unsought.
         
        One of these things is not like the others.  The effect of Darwinian selection is visible by the same means that the effects of deliberate selective breeding are visible, and humans would have to be able to observe the effects of the latter to make use of it.  Since selective breeding was written up in the Old Testament, there is no doubt that humans of 3000 years ago were capable of deriving knowledge of Darwinian evolution from nature; it just took a few millennia for theory to catch up.

        This is a completely different question from whether or not they are true in fundamentum—something which is not only not at issue, but which is, in all three cases, demonstrably false from first principles. There can be no clearer proof that science has nothing to with reality than the fact that in its major modern dogmas it has abandoned both causality and objectivity.
         
        What's non-objective about special relativity?  All observers can calculate and agree on the "space-time invariant" between two events, and further, any observer can calculate what any other observer in a differently-moving frame will observe.

        I had a recent article on the way QM "collapses" to create the basically-Newtonian world we see with our eyes, but I seem to have mis-placed the bookmark.  Further, basic things like blackbody radiation don't work without quantum effects; you can't derive them from Newtonian principles.  So some stuff is random; probability distributions are anything but, and if you don't believe your Almighty can make a universe out of wavicles you are way too certain about what you yourself assert is unknowable.  I believe that makes it a heresy, but you'll have to sort that out yourself; I quit religion 3/4 of a lifetime ago and while I'm pondering things now and then I still haven't found anything to convince me to go back.
      229. @Intelligent Dasein
        The two of you are arguing about something which neither one of you understands. The search for meaning is not a very important driver of human affairs nor a significant determinator of human happiness. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the reality of (not the "belief in") God. This is what's called onto-theology; it is a metaphysical categorical error that is ironically quite characteristic, not of religion, but of science.

        Now, regarding the truth of Darwinism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it must be stated at the outset that whether or not they are accurate desciptions of reality, their theoretical frameworks are historical develoments that have significance only within the very limited horizon of late Western modernity and for the peculiar type of man formed by that milieu. Outside of that sphere, they are utterly incomprehensible and unsought. This is a completely different question from whether or not they are true in fundamentum---something which is not only not at issue, but which is, in all three cases, demonstrably false from first principles. There can be no clearer proof that science has nothing to with reality than the fact that in its major modern dogmas it has abandoned both causality and objectivity.

        The argument that "quantumn mechanics is true because you're writing your comment on a computer" is a frequently used---and rather lame---rhetorical misdirection designed to salvage some ontic credibility for the scientific worldview based on the heuristic concept of verification through praxis. But unless you are making the bizarre claim that the introduction of quatumn theory not only described but actually reconfigured reality in its own image, then it must be true that my computer in its present state would operate just as it does now regardless of whether or not anyone had ever heard of quantum mechanics, much less believed it to be true. The reality is what it is; quantum mechanics is but one of an infinite number of underdetermined accounts that explain reality after the fact. As a theory it belongs to the "history of thought," not to the nature of existence.

        All science must eventually fall on its sword in just this fashion. It is only its utility as an onto-theological pallative that prevents the picture from becoming visible to anyone who cares to look at it.

        regarding the truth of Darwinism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it must be stated at the outset that whether or not they are accurate desciptions of reality, their theoretical frameworks are historical develoments that have significance only within the very limited horizon of late Western modernity and for the peculiar type of man formed by that milieu. Outside of that sphere, they are utterly incomprehensible and unsought.

        One of these things is not like the others.  The effect of Darwinian selection is visible by the same means that the effects of deliberate selective breeding are visible, and humans would have to be able to observe the effects of the latter to make use of it.  Since selective breeding was written up in the Old Testament, there is no doubt that humans of 3000 years ago were capable of deriving knowledge of Darwinian evolution from nature; it just took a few millennia for theory to catch up.

        This is a completely different question from whether or not they are true in fundamentum—something which is not only not at issue, but which is, in all three cases, demonstrably false from first principles. There can be no clearer proof that science has nothing to with reality than the fact that in its major modern dogmas it has abandoned both causality and objectivity.

        What’s non-objective about special relativity?  All observers can calculate and agree on the “space-time invariant” between two events, and further, any observer can calculate what any other observer in a differently-moving frame will observe.

        I had a recent article on the way QM “collapses” to create the basically-Newtonian world we see with our eyes, but I seem to have mis-placed the bookmark.  Further, basic things like blackbody radiation don’t work without quantum effects; you can’t derive them from Newtonian principles.  So some stuff is random; probability distributions are anything but, and if you don’t believe your Almighty can make a universe out of wavicles you are way too certain about what you yourself assert is unknowable.  I believe that makes it a heresy, but you’ll have to sort that out yourself; I quit religion 3/4 of a lifetime ago and while I’m pondering things now and then I still haven’t found anything to convince me to go back.

      230. @dfordoom

        Most sane human beings crave a close-knit community
         
        Maybe I just can't help playing the Devil's Advocate, but are close-knit communities necessarily all that they're cracked up to be? I approve of the idea of close-knit communities and I certainly think that those who want such things should have them, but I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        I already questioned your sanity or “nomalcy.” The “quest for community” as such is not about you per se, but people in general.

        One of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason, I think ) post-modern Americans are so much unhappier than their ancestors is the erosion of community. Barring a few oddball exceptions and malcontents who don’t play well with other people (who frequently were exiled or who self-exiled in the past), human beings are social animals and crave community.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.


        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.
        , @dfordoom


        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or “nomalcy.”
         
        I made it clear that I think people are different. Some people want close-knit communities, some people want looser communities, some people don't want communities at all. We're not the Borg. We're all different.

        I also made it clear that I'm absolutely delirious with joy at the idea of people who want close-knit communities having those close-knit communities. As long as membership isn't compulsory.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.
         
        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns. If you had said that a majority of people want family, children and community I might have agreed with you.

        It's always worth testing theories against reality. In the real world today lots of people are choosing to have one child or none. Nobody forces them to make that choice. Nobody is force-feeding them birth control pills. And in the real world today there's not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities. When reality conflicts with a theory it's time to take another look at the theory.
      231. @Twinkie

        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or "nomalcy." The "quest for community" as such is not about you per se, but people in general.

        One of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason, I think ) post-modern Americans are so much unhappier than their ancestors is the erosion of community. Barring a few oddball exceptions and malcontents who don't play well with other people (who frequently were exiled or who self-exiled in the past), human beings are social animals and crave community.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.

        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.

        • Replies: @Johann Ricke

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.

        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.
         
        I'd disagree. They need to be hermits in all but name, interacting with the outside world only through their computers, preferably anonymously.
        , @Twinkie

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.
         
        Stop being insecure and obsessing over me. If you disagree with my observations about human nature, disagree and state why like an adult. Don’t be passive-aggressive like a jilted teenage girl.
        , @dfordoom

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.
         
        We are Twinkie. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
      232. @Mr. Rational

        Atheists can’t help themselves. They’re zealots.
         
        Tell me just how zealous the atheists here have been.  You probably just learned of a new one who hadn't said anything until you made an issue of it.

        They’re worse than Jehovah’s Witnesses.
         
        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and "The God Delusion"?

        Please, don't make me laugh THAT hard.  I don't want a hernia.

        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and “The God Delusion”?

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don’t have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along. I had a group come by less than a month ago. They asked if they could park in my drive while they canvassed the neighborhood on foot and I told them sure. (I was irked at my neighbors for running wild with their atvs at all hours.)

        One of the funniest incidents in my life was about 30 years ago when I was having some outside work done. The workman was a Holy Roller preacher. Some Witnesses came by while I was outside and engaged me and the preacher who was on a ladder. He came flying down the ladder and said, “Yes sir, I would love to discuss Jesus, let me get to my truck and get my Bible!” Fleeter footed Witnesses you have never seen.

        • Replies: @Mr. Rational

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don’t have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along.
         
        And just how does this support the claim that most atheists are zealots?  Do please TRY to follow the argument.
      233. @dfordoom

        If it makes you happier – if it allows you to believe there is a meaning and purpose to life – why the hell not? Doom is right: atheists have nothing to compete with this.
         
        And for some reason atheists just can't see it. Atheists just do not understand what makes people tick. They're too busy preening themselves on their intellectual superiority.

        If you start doubting your religion because of what an atheist has said, the first thing you’re going to ditch is the more unreasonable doctrines.
         
        The problem with Darwinism is that it didn't just undermine traditional religious belief. It undermined any belief at all in an ordered universe with meaning and purpose. Even a lukewarm cultural Christianity became untenable.

        which is where I really wish atheists would stop, rather than following the guy all the way down the street, insisting he abandon every last religious commitment.
         
        Atheists can't help themselves. They're zealots. They're worse than Jehovah's Witnesses.

        I'm an agnostic but I'm pragmatic about belief. Anything that gets you through the night.

        Right-wing atheists are the saddest. Left-wing atheists have invented alternative belief systems to provide meaning and purpose - Marxism, social justice, environmentalism. Right-wing atheists have nothing to offer.

        I didn’t disparage religion or people who are religious. All things considered, religion is likely a plus.

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that’s okay with me.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that’s okay with me.
         
        I personally believe that the universe is indifferent to me. That's OK because I'm indifferent to the universe.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Crom be your God, iffen.
      234. @iffen
        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.


        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.

        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.

        I’d disagree. They need to be hermits in all but name, interacting with the outside world only through their computers, preferably anonymously.

        • LOL: Twinkie
      235. @iffen
        Have you ever had atheists come to your door peddling Reason magazine and “The God Delusion”?

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don't have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along. I had a group come by less than a month ago. They asked if they could park in my drive while they canvassed the neighborhood on foot and I told them sure. (I was irked at my neighbors for running wild with their atvs at all hours.)

        One of the funniest incidents in my life was about 30 years ago when I was having some outside work done. The workman was a Holy Roller preacher. Some Witnesses came by while I was outside and engaged me and the preacher who was on a ladder. He came flying down the ladder and said, "Yes sir, I would love to discuss Jesus, let me get to my truck and get my Bible!" Fleeter footed Witnesses you have never seen.

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don’t have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along.

        And just how does this support the claim that most atheists are zealots?  Do please TRY to follow the argument.

        • Replies: @iffen
        And just how does this support the claim that most atheists are zealots? Do please TRY to follow the argument.

        I'm sorry Mr. Rational, I think my mind must have been captured by some Jewish thought control transmissions which caused me to veer from the course that you chose for me.

        I am an atheist, but not a zealous one, hence I didn't see the need to zealously defend non-zealous atheism.

        You were disparaging Jehovah's Witnesses and as a general rule I throw in upon the side of trying to understand and tolerate the religious and giving them a fair hearing.
      236. @res

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.
         
        I was also going to reply to that statement by AE. Since it is something of an indirect reply to your comment as well I will do it here.

        AE, I think you are omitting an important causal factor (actually a cluster of them, but closely related). One aspect is MikeatMikedotMike's point about nutrition misinformation from the sources which are supposed to be impartial and/or trying to help us. That also translates into issues with institutional diets (e.g. school lunches). But more broadly:

        It requires much more conscious effort now to eat a healthy diet than it did in the past. Availability of everything has improved, but the biggest "improvement" is in the plethora of processed food available. Both in supermarkets and in "restaurants" (scare quotes because I mostly mean fast food here, though not exclusively).

        Even with the best intentions it can be difficult to avoid all of this. In particular, when social pressure is involved.

        Then add to that all of the work the processed food manufacturers do on palatability (and presumably on things that make people eat MORE of their product, e.g. insulin spikes/crashes will do that). I have been amazed by how bad my food cravings can be in certain situations.

        One thing I think worth considering is how the default food choices typically presented constitute an "anti-Nudge" as far as good health is concerned.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

        There is a reason we have ballooned in the last fifty years. Obviously our genes have not changed that much. I don't think human psychology has changed that much either (though I do think there are some vicious cycles here which food marketers exploit to our detriment).

        What has really changed is the environment we are saturated in. The good news is as you said--it has never been easier to achieve peak physical condition. The bad news is it is harder (IMHO, meaning you have to actively work at it) to achieve good physical condition now than it was fifty years ago because our default choices are worse. In particular, our food and lack of intrinsic day to day physical activity.

        In brief, both genes and psychology matter, but it is our environment which is making it so easy to become obese. And a big part of human psychology over all of time is many people have difficulty taking anything but the easy path.

        Agree with everything here. I didn’t mean to imply that our psychology has changed significantly in 100 years. If our great grandparents had the same food choices and availability we do now, they’d have been obese, too. My point was that we can’t collectively overcome that psychology very easily. Propaganda can’t seem to do it for more than a small number of people who are exceptionally fit today.

        • Replies: @res
        Agreed. The question then becomes: how do we overcome it as a society? The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.

        I think some things which might help are:
        - More good examples. How to eat well without breaking the bank (e.g. see Alden's comments). How to incorporate physical activity into daily life (a simple example, I find it much less stressful to park in the back of parking lots and walk an extra couple of hundred feet).
        - Combined emphasis on diet and being active. The more I use my body the more I appreciate it working well. There are both virtuous and vicious cycles possible here. Many people are trapped in the vicious cycle of being so out of shape that exercising is a horrible experience.
        - Reworking food subsidies. In the US it is almost like someone is trying to make us obese.
        - Some way of exerting peer pressure in a supportive rather than shaming way. On a small scale this could be getting friends to try progressively harder fun but active activities.

        Any more ideas?

        One problem with the polarization of fitness is the good examples are so far from the people who need work/help that I don't think the latter can even envision the former as role models. They serve more as targets for envy and resentment. Which I think creates psychological pressure to NOT be like them.
      237. @iffen
        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.


        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.

        Stop being insecure and obsessing over me. If you disagree with my observations about human nature, disagree and state why like an adult. Don’t be passive-aggressive like a jilted teenage girl.

      238. @Twinkie

        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or "nomalcy." The "quest for community" as such is not about you per se, but people in general.

        One of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason, I think ) post-modern Americans are so much unhappier than their ancestors is the erosion of community. Barring a few oddball exceptions and malcontents who don't play well with other people (who frequently were exiled or who self-exiled in the past), human beings are social animals and crave community.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.

        I already questioned your sanity or “nomalcy.”

        I made it clear that I think people are different. Some people want close-knit communities, some people want looser communities, some people don’t want communities at all. We’re not the Borg. We’re all different.

        I also made it clear that I’m absolutely delirious with joy at the idea of people who want close-knit communities having those close-knit communities. As long as membership isn’t compulsory.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns. If you had said that a majority of people want family, children and community I might have agreed with you.

        It’s always worth testing theories against reality. In the real world today lots of people are choosing to have one child or none. Nobody forces them to make that choice. Nobody is force-feeding them birth control pills. And in the real world today there’s not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities. When reality conflicts with a theory it’s time to take another look at the theory.

        • Replies: @Twinkie

        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns.
         
        They were a very small minority, not a significant one. They seem salient, because they were a big fraction of the tiny literate population and left written records.

        And in the real world today there’s not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities.
         
        Oh, there is a huge demand for the benefits of a close-knit society. It’s just that many people want the benefits without the giving necessary to sustain the ties. Sound familiar? And statists have encouraged this mentality, because they seek the weakening of the “little platoons” of life and increased dependence on the all-powerful state.

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).
        , @Audacious Epigone
        Desired and realized fertility have been diverging, though. I suspect among the elderly that the rate of regret for not having children among the childless is much higher than the rate of regret for having children among those who have them is.
      239. @iffen
        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.


        2020 iteration #23
        2019 iterations >365
        2018 etc.
        etc.

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.

        We are Twinkie. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Twinkie fan club member here, and I know I'm not alone. Probably part of the silent majority.
      240. @Audacious Epigone
        Agree with everything here. I didn't mean to imply that our psychology has changed significantly in 100 years. If our great grandparents had the same food choices and availability we do now, they'd have been obese, too. My point was that we can't collectively overcome that psychology very easily. Propaganda can't seem to do it for more than a small number of people who are exceptionally fit today.

        Agreed. The question then becomes: how do we overcome it as a society? The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.

        I think some things which might help are:
        – More good examples. How to eat well without breaking the bank (e.g. see Alden’s comments). How to incorporate physical activity into daily life (a simple example, I find it much less stressful to park in the back of parking lots and walk an extra couple of hundred feet).
        – Combined emphasis on diet and being active. The more I use my body the more I appreciate it working well. There are both virtuous and vicious cycles possible here. Many people are trapped in the vicious cycle of being so out of shape that exercising is a horrible experience.
        – Reworking food subsidies. In the US it is almost like someone is trying to make us obese.
        – Some way of exerting peer pressure in a supportive rather than shaming way. On a small scale this could be getting friends to try progressively harder fun but active activities.

        Any more ideas?

        One problem with the polarization of fitness is the good examples are so far from the people who need work/help that I don’t think the latter can even envision the former as role models. They serve more as targets for envy and resentment. Which I think creates psychological pressure to NOT be like them.

        • Replies: @silviosilver

        The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.
         
        I think it's a net negative. One of the most powerful motivations to change is hitting a threshold level of pain when you become extremely upset with yourself and you declare: NO MORE. If you encourage people to be accepting of their fatness, then you'll reduce the likelihood of people hitting threshold pain levels.
        , @Audacious Epigone
        No one should ever be mocked for what rung of the ladder they're on, they should only be mocked for refusing to try to climb.

        Among people I know, I counsel a set of 25 air squats when they wake up and a set of 25 air squats before going to bed. Then I casually ask them how it's going whenever I see them next. It's effective. It flows in the same vein as Jordan Peterson's famous advice to "clean your room".
      241. @res

        Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.
         
        I was also going to reply to that statement by AE. Since it is something of an indirect reply to your comment as well I will do it here.

        AE, I think you are omitting an important causal factor (actually a cluster of them, but closely related). One aspect is MikeatMikedotMike's point about nutrition misinformation from the sources which are supposed to be impartial and/or trying to help us. That also translates into issues with institutional diets (e.g. school lunches). But more broadly:

        It requires much more conscious effort now to eat a healthy diet than it did in the past. Availability of everything has improved, but the biggest "improvement" is in the plethora of processed food available. Both in supermarkets and in "restaurants" (scare quotes because I mostly mean fast food here, though not exclusively).

        Even with the best intentions it can be difficult to avoid all of this. In particular, when social pressure is involved.

        Then add to that all of the work the processed food manufacturers do on palatability (and presumably on things that make people eat MORE of their product, e.g. insulin spikes/crashes will do that). I have been amazed by how bad my food cravings can be in certain situations.

        One thing I think worth considering is how the default food choices typically presented constitute an "anti-Nudge" as far as good health is concerned.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)

        There is a reason we have ballooned in the last fifty years. Obviously our genes have not changed that much. I don't think human psychology has changed that much either (though I do think there are some vicious cycles here which food marketers exploit to our detriment).

        What has really changed is the environment we are saturated in. The good news is as you said--it has never been easier to achieve peak physical condition. The bad news is it is harder (IMHO, meaning you have to actively work at it) to achieve good physical condition now than it was fifty years ago because our default choices are worse. In particular, our food and lack of intrinsic day to day physical activity.

        In brief, both genes and psychology matter, but it is our environment which is making it so easy to become obese. And a big part of human psychology over all of time is many people have difficulty taking anything but the easy path.

        Availability

        In the past, scarcity put constraints on the low IQ, high impulsivity, low time horizon people from gorging and the necessity of physical labor prevented immobility. So only the rich (“fat cats”) became obese.

        You are right that today’s world is one of abundance. The constraints of scarcity and the necessity of physical labor are gone. The only positive adaptive mechanism or filter as such today are high IQ, low impulsivity, high time horizon, etc.

        I don’t know which has been worse for the lower classes, the gluttonous plenty and lack of worthwhile labor of today or the Malthusian near-starvation and physical toil of yesterday. I have my own preference Under this scenario, but I am okay with pain. But even I would crumble at seeing my little ones starve.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        Do the goldilocks 1950s win yet again?
      242. @iffen
        I didn't disparage religion or people who are religious. All things considered, religion is likely a plus.

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that's okay with me.

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that’s okay with me.

        I personally believe that the universe is indifferent to me. That’s OK because I’m indifferent to the universe.

        • Replies: @Twinkie

        I’m indifferent to the universe.
         
        You are just too cool for life.
      243. @dfordoom

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that’s okay with me.
         
        I personally believe that the universe is indifferent to me. That's OK because I'm indifferent to the universe.

        I’m indifferent to the universe.

        You are just too cool for life.

      244. @dfordoom


        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or “nomalcy.”
         
        I made it clear that I think people are different. Some people want close-knit communities, some people want looser communities, some people don't want communities at all. We're not the Borg. We're all different.

        I also made it clear that I'm absolutely delirious with joy at the idea of people who want close-knit communities having those close-knit communities. As long as membership isn't compulsory.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.
         
        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns. If you had said that a majority of people want family, children and community I might have agreed with you.

        It's always worth testing theories against reality. In the real world today lots of people are choosing to have one child or none. Nobody forces them to make that choice. Nobody is force-feeding them birth control pills. And in the real world today there's not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities. When reality conflicts with a theory it's time to take another look at the theory.

        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns.

        They were a very small minority, not a significant one. They seem salient, because they were a big fraction of the tiny literate population and left written records.

        And in the real world today there’s not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities.

        Oh, there is a huge demand for the benefits of a close-knit society. It’s just that many people want the benefits without the giving necessary to sustain the ties. Sound familiar? And statists have encouraged this mentality, because they seek the weakening of the “little platoons” of life and increased dependence on the all-powerful state.

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).

        • Agree: Johann Ricke
        • Replies: @dfordoom

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).
         
        It's possible that what people are looking for is loose-knit communities. Some sense of belonging but without the pressure for conformity and without formal rules.
      245. @Twinkie

        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns.
         
        They were a very small minority, not a significant one. They seem salient, because they were a big fraction of the tiny literate population and left written records.

        And in the real world today there’s not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities.
         
        Oh, there is a huge demand for the benefits of a close-knit society. It’s just that many people want the benefits without the giving necessary to sustain the ties. Sound familiar? And statists have encouraged this mentality, because they seek the weakening of the “little platoons” of life and increased dependence on the all-powerful state.

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).

        It’s possible that what people are looking for is loose-knit communities. Some sense of belonging but without the pressure for conformity and without formal rules.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record. We might as well encourage everyone to try and add a few extra IQ points in order to be like Twinkie.
      246. @res
        Agreed. The question then becomes: how do we overcome it as a society? The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.

        I think some things which might help are:
        - More good examples. How to eat well without breaking the bank (e.g. see Alden's comments). How to incorporate physical activity into daily life (a simple example, I find it much less stressful to park in the back of parking lots and walk an extra couple of hundred feet).
        - Combined emphasis on diet and being active. The more I use my body the more I appreciate it working well. There are both virtuous and vicious cycles possible here. Many people are trapped in the vicious cycle of being so out of shape that exercising is a horrible experience.
        - Reworking food subsidies. In the US it is almost like someone is trying to make us obese.
        - Some way of exerting peer pressure in a supportive rather than shaming way. On a small scale this could be getting friends to try progressively harder fun but active activities.

        Any more ideas?

        One problem with the polarization of fitness is the good examples are so far from the people who need work/help that I don't think the latter can even envision the former as role models. They serve more as targets for envy and resentment. Which I think creates psychological pressure to NOT be like them.

        The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.

        I think it’s a net negative. One of the most powerful motivations to change is hitting a threshold level of pain when you become extremely upset with yourself and you declare: NO MORE. If you encourage people to be accepting of their fatness, then you’ll reduce the likelihood of people hitting threshold pain levels.

      247. @Mr. Rational

        Most Witnesses that come to my door seem to be really nice people. I don’t have any trouble telling them that I am comfortable with my beliefs and do not wish to discuss religion. They have always been polite to me and move along.
         
        And just how does this support the claim that most atheists are zealots?  Do please TRY to follow the argument.

        And just how does this support the claim that most atheists are zealots? Do please TRY to follow the argument.

        I’m sorry Mr. Rational, I think my mind must have been captured by some Jewish thought control transmissions which caused me to veer from the course that you chose for me.

        I am an atheist, but not a zealous one, hence I didn’t see the need to zealously defend non-zealous atheism.

        You were disparaging Jehovah’s Witnesses and as a general rule I throw in upon the side of trying to understand and tolerate the religious and giving them a fair hearing.

      248. @dfordoom

        But you see the impulses for community time and again in different places. Even this blog is an exemplar of such an impulse. I suspect many of the readers and commenters feel alienated by the society at large today and are seeking some sense of belonging here with the likeminded (or at least similarly alienated).
         
        It's possible that what people are looking for is loose-knit communities. Some sense of belonging but without the pressure for conformity and without formal rules.

        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record. We might as well encourage everyone to try and add a few extra IQ points in order to be like Twinkie.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record.
         
        In the current state of society is there any approach that has a really good track record? That seems to be our problem. Everything we've tried that sounded like a great idea in theory seems to work poorly in the real world.

        The real world is irritatingly messy. I can see why so many people prefer to live in fantasy worlds. Whether it's Social Justice Fantasy World or Feminist Fantasy World or Dissident Right Fantasy World or White Nationalist Fantasy World or Make America Great Again Fantasy World.
      249. @iffen
        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record. We might as well encourage everyone to try and add a few extra IQ points in order to be like Twinkie.

        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record.

        In the current state of society is there any approach that has a really good track record? That seems to be our problem. Everything we’ve tried that sounded like a great idea in theory seems to work poorly in the real world.

        The real world is irritatingly messy. I can see why so many people prefer to live in fantasy worlds. Whether it’s Social Justice Fantasy World or Feminist Fantasy World or Dissident Right Fantasy World or White Nationalist Fantasy World or Make America Great Again Fantasy World.

        • Replies: @iffen
        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.
      250. @AaronB
        I

        don’t for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.
         
        One of the cool things about evolution is, if its true, it demolishes the basis for us trusting our minds to tell us the truth.

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can't know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.

        The mathematician Goedel demonstrated that every system of proofs must be based on some assumptions from outside the system, and that trying to prove all propositions from within the system must lead to contradiction.

        This is so beautifully illustrated with Darwinism. You must assume that at least when it comes to Darwinism, your mind is telling you the truth. But if you try and prove it from within the system of Darwinism, you get the result that a mind designed for survival cannot be relied on to tell us the truth. So you have to import it as an assumption from outside the system.

        Its so beautiful and elegant.

        Which begs the question - why is Darwinism treated as less of a fiction than religion, when Darwinism itself shows that an evolved mind that produces a theory of evolution cannot be relied on to accurately perceive the truth?

        The funny thing is, that Darwinism can be used as a basis for religion, this makes clear. If we cannot trust our senses and our logic, as Darwinism shows, then we cannot make positive statements about the ultimate nature of truth using logic.

        This opens the door for "faith". Darwinism demolishes any basis for confidently claiming we "know" there is no God and religion is false. Darwinism restores the mystery of a pre-scientific age.

        Kant's philosophy did the same thing a bit earlier.

        The interesting question remains, why are modern people so intent on basing their belief in Darwinism on an assumption that cannot be proved from within Darwinism? This gives Darwinism the character of a "faith".

        So why this faith? I suspect it is bound up with our feeling that this faith is necessary for technology and the power it gives us. If we give up Darwinism, we give up the grand Technological Quest.

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can’t know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.

        We can’t know that we know, because we don’t know that we know, and only knowledge and knowing it was knowledge would suffice to prove we know that we know. That is just Epictetus’s epistemic circle.

        You can make the same argument about all knowledge. DesCartes’s notion, God cannot be a liar so sense perception is accurate, well, how do we know? Maybe God is a liar, and designed us to mis-perceive the Universe because “we can’t handle the truth” and its compassionate, and it will all be made better in the by and by. My sense is that most people can’t handle the truth, so that presumably is a result of God’s provident design if not evolution.

        • Replies: @Tulip
        If we look at DesCartes's argument, it is purely metaphysical based on his notion of what perfection should be, along purely Platonistic and basically Hellenistic lines. In contrast, the Biblical story reveals a God who frequently resorts to deception, and further is perfectly happy to endorse deception on the part of his favored ones. In the story of Sodom, the angels intentionally deceive the people of Sodom as to their true identity to test them. In Jacob and Esau, God endorses Esau deception of his father, and Jacob's swindling Esau out of his birthright. In Job, despite God's love of Job, God permits a series of events to occur to Job which are intended to demonstrate that God has withdrawn his love. In the story of Exodus, God hardens Pharaoh's heart (intentionally tricking him) into ignoring Moses so that God can demonstrate his power by brutalizing the people of Egypt in a series of plagues. This list of scriptural examples is just what I can come up with off the top of my head.

        In as much as the Judeo-Christian God is revealed in the scriptures of those traditions, he seems very much a deceiver, and it would suggest that humans are formed in such a way that most of them are incapable of forming justified true beliefs. Thus, if some version of those traditions are true, and such a being exists and is the author of the universe, we can have no confidence in any of our sources of knowledge, even any confidence in Divine Revelation, as God may be intentionally deceiving us for some "higher purpose" we cannot conceive of, and we may very well simply be playing the role of Job or the people of Egypt who went through a horrible series of misfortunes only to lose their first-born sons.
        , @AaronB
        Good points. Already in Descartes time it was known that trusting our mind can only be an act of faith, and mind cannot prove its own reliability.

        Funnily enough, early science was based on this insight that we cannot know anything. When Europeans started reading the Greek Skeptics, they said forget about knowledge, let's just experiment and see what works.

        Science was never supposed to give us knowledge. By the late 19th century, people abandoned free-thinking and began to return to Aristotelian certainty, ending the free thinking experiment.

        That is why today, people can unironically say they "know" Darwinian is true and "know" there is no God. We have the certainty of the Middle Ages, just inverted. We have arrived at the other side of the free-thinking experiment to find ourselves in the same place, just turned upside-down :)

        We will most likely now spend a few decades or centuries "knowing" that the opposite of everything they believed in the Middle Ages is true. Then a new free-thinking experiment will begin.- taking us, hopefully, somewhere interesting.
      251. @dfordoom

        Your vanguardish illuminati approach does not have a good track record.
         
        In the current state of society is there any approach that has a really good track record? That seems to be our problem. Everything we've tried that sounded like a great idea in theory seems to work poorly in the real world.

        The real world is irritatingly messy. I can see why so many people prefer to live in fantasy worlds. Whether it's Social Justice Fantasy World or Feminist Fantasy World or Dissident Right Fantasy World or White Nationalist Fantasy World or Make America Great Again Fantasy World.

        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.

        • Replies: @dfordoom
        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.

        You're suggesting we concentrate on achieving goals that might be actually achievable? That might gain some degree of widespread popular support? That might even win a very small number of elites over to our side? That might actually lead to some limited victories?

        That's just crazy talk.
      252. @Twinkie
        Traveling for instant novelty and photo-ops might have become cheap, but the old upperclass style tours of a region (which often took weeks and months) are still costly.

        I always tell people that I hate traveling, but enjoy living in other countries and studying their peoples, histories, and cultures... and killing them. That always shuts down the inane “When I went to India... “ or “When I was in Africa for a week-long medical mission...” type of conversations.

        A cousin of mine used to regularly wear a shirt like this.

      253. @Rosie

        After a while, no matter where you go, the same dreary patterns repeat themselves:
         
        The most exciting thing about travel is that it allows you to "try on" someone else's culture, to see the world in a new way, from a whole new perspective. By nature, this is an exhilarating experience, but it is also singular. The exhilaration happens only once. Then, it's just, as you say, a dreary pattern.

        I may decide to do some travelling with my kids later on. Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        Can confirm.

        • Replies: @iffen
        Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        They freshen the hell out of their diapers in their early years, that's for sure.
      254. @iffen
        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.

        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.

        You’re suggesting we concentrate on achieving goals that might be actually achievable? That might gain some degree of widespread popular support? That might even win a very small number of elites over to our side? That might actually lead to some limited victories?

        That’s just crazy talk.

        • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
        We don't want to reveal too much, but this is a very important comment.
      255. @Audacious Epigone
        Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        Can confirm.

        Kids make everything fresh and new again.

        They freshen the hell out of their diapers in their early years, that’s for sure.

      256. @Tulip

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can’t know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.
         
        We can't know that we know, because we don't know that we know, and only knowledge and knowing it was knowledge would suffice to prove we know that we know. That is just Epictetus's epistemic circle.

        You can make the same argument about all knowledge. DesCartes's notion, God cannot be a liar so sense perception is accurate, well, how do we know? Maybe God is a liar, and designed us to mis-perceive the Universe because "we can't handle the truth" and its compassionate, and it will all be made better in the by and by. My sense is that most people can't handle the truth, so that presumably is a result of God's provident design if not evolution.

        If we look at DesCartes’s argument, it is purely metaphysical based on his notion of what perfection should be, along purely Platonistic and basically Hellenistic lines. In contrast, the Biblical story reveals a God who frequently resorts to deception, and further is perfectly happy to endorse deception on the part of his favored ones. In the story of Sodom, the angels intentionally deceive the people of Sodom as to their true identity to test them. In Jacob and Esau, God endorses Esau deception of his father, and Jacob’s swindling Esau out of his birthright. In Job, despite God’s love of Job, God permits a series of events to occur to Job which are intended to demonstrate that God has withdrawn his love. In the story of Exodus, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart (intentionally tricking him) into ignoring Moses so that God can demonstrate his power by brutalizing the people of Egypt in a series of plagues. This list of scriptural examples is just what I can come up with off the top of my head.

        In as much as the Judeo-Christian God is revealed in the scriptures of those traditions, he seems very much a deceiver, and it would suggest that humans are formed in such a way that most of them are incapable of forming justified true beliefs. Thus, if some version of those traditions are true, and such a being exists and is the author of the universe, we can have no confidence in any of our sources of knowledge, even any confidence in Divine Revelation, as God may be intentionally deceiving us for some “higher purpose” we cannot conceive of, and we may very well simply be playing the role of Job or the people of Egypt who went through a horrible series of misfortunes only to lose their first-born sons.

      257. @Mr. Rational

        How about a non-sexist compromise? Why not simply limit higher education to the tiny percentage of the population who actually need it (regardless of sex)? Maybe too much education is bad for everybody.
         
        I've seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies, and education (indoctrination) is essential to being part of today's elite.  This appears to be why we have so many people in higher ed who want to go to work for non-profits rather than being doctors or entrepreneurs; there's no room for them anywhere else.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.

        Charles Murray suggests higher education has utility for about 10% of the population. Assuming a mean population IQ of 98, the threshold would be about 115.

      258. @MikeatMikedotMike
        Considering you plastered my name at the top of your blog post to promote a false premise - that there is no concerted effort to drive down white fertility - I'm a bit surprised to get such a weak and thoughtless reply.

        It is unfortunate that your fear of being ADL'd or whatever has made you somewhat dishonest in your presentation of ideas. If you can't reconcile your privacy concerns with telling the truth then quitting the blog would be better than continuing to promote falsehoods.

        It’s an interesting discussion. I don’t disagree that there is, if not a concerted effort to reduce white fertility, then at least a preference among elites that it declines. My intention in excerpting your comment that 216 was reacting to was to provide context. You of course may be correct and 216 and I incorrect–that’s what this thread, approaching 300 comments, is about hashing out.

        The psychological driver seems to be stronger, though. Fertility declines track a lack of assertiveness/extraversion. Fertility is low in wealthy Western Europe, the US, and East Asia, but it’s also low in among relatively poor American Indians.

        The biggest issue I have with the idea that Jews are subversively trying to explicitly lower white fertility is that (non-Orthodox) Jewish fertility has dropped even faster than white gentile fertility has. My perception is that affluent, liberal whites–who are disproportionately Jewish–flourish in and prefer the trappings and consequences of a society where fertility is depressed across the board.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        The biggest issue I have with the idea that Jews are subversively trying to explicitly lower white fertility is that (non-Orthodox) Jewish fertility has dropped even faster than white gentile fertility has. My perception is that affluent, liberal whites–who are disproportionately Jewish–flourish in and prefer the trappings and consequences of a society where fertility is depressed across the board.
         
        Another explanation would be that the various factors driving fertility decline are flaws within modern industrialised urbanised society. And that non-Orthodox Jews are as much victims of this as gentiles are.

        Rather than Jews trying to subvert western civilisation it's possible that modern capitalist western civilisation is inherently destructive and that it is destroying Jews the same way it's destroying everyone else.

        Given that western-style capitalism and liberalism are destroying every society they've touched this seems plausible. Singapore has experienced the most catastrophic fertility collapse in history and it's difficult to see how the Jews can be blamed for that.
      259. @dfordoom

        I’ve seen the proposition that overproduction of elites destabilizes societies
         
        I think that's almost certainly true.

        Requiring an IQ over 115 to qualify for university would address part of the overproduction problem.
         
        Yes. And also requiring people to give a valid reason for needing a university education would help.

        Valid reasons would be something like an intention to become a doctor or an engineer. Valid reasons would not include wanting to do a major in Gender Studies or Film Studies.

        Maybe as a society we need to sit down and figure out how many engineers we need, and how many Gender Studies majors we need.

        The libertarian answer to that, which I’m partial to, is that absent government subsidy, the market would figure it out in the form of wages. Engineers would be able to earn them, gender studies majors would not be able to–at least not when there is such an enormous oversupply of them for the very limited demand they serve.

      260. @Thomm
        Heh. Your comment reveals more about yourself than you know.

        Most WNs on this thread are gay. You are among the few that are not gay, but you are definitely a fat fetishist, given your reaction to my very benign, fact-based comment.

        Oh, and I am pretty sure you know I am a white guy. Imagining I am an Arab, South Asian, or Jew is just a pain-avoidance mechanism. Yes, I am the best type of man. But you are not as you are not part of the functional 80%, but rather the bottom 20%.

        (laughter reserved for the end of this comment, since the best zinger is yet to come)


        Since your woman is obese, you are very insecure that she might leave you for a black guy. Chris Rock said as much about bottom-rung WN types like you. That is your constant worry as a fatty fucker...

        Heh heh heh heh

        Schoolmarm: People are not “wastematter”.

        • Replies: @Thomm
        Hey, I got a right to defend myself.*

        *Quoting Paulie Walnuts.
      261. @Tulip

        If we evolved to survive, fictions and approximate illusions may be more useful than truth. Which means we can’t know if our interpretations of the evidence that leads us to the conclusions of evolution are true. They may be just another fiction useful for survival.
         
        We can't know that we know, because we don't know that we know, and only knowledge and knowing it was knowledge would suffice to prove we know that we know. That is just Epictetus's epistemic circle.

        You can make the same argument about all knowledge. DesCartes's notion, God cannot be a liar so sense perception is accurate, well, how do we know? Maybe God is a liar, and designed us to mis-perceive the Universe because "we can't handle the truth" and its compassionate, and it will all be made better in the by and by. My sense is that most people can't handle the truth, so that presumably is a result of God's provident design if not evolution.

        Good points. Already in Descartes time it was known that trusting our mind can only be an act of faith, and mind cannot prove its own reliability.

        Funnily enough, early science was based on this insight that we cannot know anything. When Europeans started reading the Greek Skeptics, they said forget about knowledge, let’s just experiment and see what works.

        Science was never supposed to give us knowledge. By the late 19th century, people abandoned free-thinking and began to return to Aristotelian certainty, ending the free thinking experiment.

        That is why today, people can unironically say they “know” Darwinian is true and “know” there is no God. We have the certainty of the Middle Ages, just inverted. We have arrived at the other side of the free-thinking experiment to find ourselves in the same place, just turned upside-down 🙂

        We will most likely now spend a few decades or centuries “knowing” that the opposite of everything they believed in the Middle Ages is true. Then a new free-thinking experiment will begin.- taking us, hopefully, somewhere interesting.

      262. @Intelligent Dasein
        Just for the record, I've already written multiple posts on that very subject, the last one of which was published on this very blog and was completely ignored by everybody.

        The key is to inflate away the debt while incentivizing work and savings by adding a money multiplier to earned income. The comment is here.

        https://www.unz.com/anepigone/bursting-the-big-fat-bubble/#comment-3601938

        I read your plan and would certainly be willing to implement it. As I’m sure you’ve noticed around the dissident web sphere in general and TUR specifically, none of these pundits ever have a plan to fix anything.

        I do have a question though, since the plan requires significant participation and expenditures from the feds: Would your plan benefit more, less or unchanged by eliminating a majority of the welfare entitlements currently in place?

        As you mentioned, incentivizing employment is crucial, and welfare incentivizes the opposite.

        • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
        Thank you for reading.

        Yes, the welfare entitlements would be gone, even including retirement. The multiplier would attach only to earned income---to work---in order to incentivize production. The pyramid scheme whereby wealth is transferred to unproductive people would be brought to end.

        I will not be politic to say it, but at least for those in the know it should be clear, that the whole thing is specifically designed as a clawback---from finance back to industry, from capital back to labor, from old back to young, from consumers back to producers, from debtors back to creditors. The idea is to spend a fixed period of time reversing all present conditions (i.e. popping the Everything Bubble) in order to swing the pendulum the other way, and then to reintroduce the gold standard so that the pendulum hangs straight down without swinging anymore.
      263. @Audacious Epigone
        It's an interesting discussion. I don't disagree that there is, if not a concerted effort to reduce white fertility, then at least a preference among elites that it declines. My intention in excerpting your comment that 216 was reacting to was to provide context. You of course may be correct and 216 and I incorrect--that's what this thread, approaching 300 comments, is about hashing out.

        The psychological driver seems to be stronger, though. Fertility declines track a lack of assertiveness/extraversion. Fertility is low in wealthy Western Europe, the US, and East Asia, but it's also low in among relatively poor American Indians.

        The biggest issue I have with the idea that Jews are subversively trying to explicitly lower white fertility is that (non-Orthodox) Jewish fertility has dropped even faster than white gentile fertility has. My perception is that affluent, liberal whites--who are disproportionately Jewish--flourish in and prefer the trappings and consequences of a society where fertility is depressed across the board.

        The biggest issue I have with the idea that Jews are subversively trying to explicitly lower white fertility is that (non-Orthodox) Jewish fertility has dropped even faster than white gentile fertility has. My perception is that affluent, liberal whites–who are disproportionately Jewish–flourish in and prefer the trappings and consequences of a society where fertility is depressed across the board.

        Another explanation would be that the various factors driving fertility decline are flaws within modern industrialised urbanised society. And that non-Orthodox Jews are as much victims of this as gentiles are.

        Rather than Jews trying to subvert western civilisation it’s possible that modern capitalist western civilisation is inherently destructive and that it is destroying Jews the same way it’s destroying everyone else.

        Given that western-style capitalism and liberalism are destroying every society they’ve touched this seems plausible. Singapore has experienced the most catastrophic fertility collapse in history and it’s difficult to see how the Jews can be blamed for that.

        • Agree: Audacious Epigone
      264. @jabrwok
        As for me. not being married and not having children is a reminder of what a failure my life is.

        Speak it brother! While in theory I could still father children, at my age (50) and economic level (statistical mean) and social activity level (nil), the odds of me finding an appealing young woman who wants to bear my children are pretty much non-existent, and children represent the only kind of immortality to which we can *know* we have access: bloodline immortality.

        Afterlives are all well and good if real, but there's really no way to know short of dying, and if you're wrong you'll never know at all. Not terribly encouraging or motivating, that. As things stand now, my investment in the future ends when I die. What happens after that doesn't concern me. A people which hopes to survive can't afford for that perspective to become common.

        Even if you don’t have kids, you probably have nieces and nephews. If not that, then cousins who will have your second cousins.

      265. @dfordoom


        It could be argued that quantum mechanics also undermined civilisation.
         
        Yet you couldn’t write your post without a computer, built on QM technology of electrons tunnelling through energy barriers.
         
        I think you may have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I don't for one minute doubt the truth of Darwinian natural selection or relativity or quantum mechanics.

        But these are truths that the human mind doesn't deal with very well. These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe. That has an effect on people. People need to feel that their lives and the universe itself mean something. The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        There are people who can find cold scientific truth exciting and exhilarating. But for most people cold scientific truth is depressing and alienating. I'm not arguing about the truths of these scientific theories. I agree with you that they're almost certainly true. I'm arguing about their psychological effect on people. If they have a negative psychological effect on people then this will undermine civilisation.

        These are truths that suggest that the universe, and human life, are random and meaningless and that we live in an indifferent or hostile universe.

        The end result is that people became more selfish and self-centred, more pessimistic and more hedonistic because if everything is meaningless then you might as well be selfish, self-centred, pessimistic and hedonistic.

        This is why I’m such a big proponent of Stoicism, a philosophical system of ethics that is able to acknowledge the former without concluding the latter.

        • Agree: Mr. Rational
      266. @iffen
        I didn't disparage religion or people who are religious. All things considered, religion is likely a plus.

        I was simply pointing out for your benefit that the universed is, in fact, indifferent to you or me. If you or anyone else wishes to believe differently, that's okay with me.

        Crom be your God, iffen.

        • Replies: @iffen
        ... Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

        Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
        Because their words had forked no lightning they
        Do not go gentle into that good night...

        Dylan Thomas
      267. @dfordoom


        I am not absolutely convinced that I want to be part of a close-knit community.
         
        I already questioned your sanity or “nomalcy.”
         
        I made it clear that I think people are different. Some people want close-knit communities, some people want looser communities, some people don't want communities at all. We're not the Borg. We're all different.

        I also made it clear that I'm absolutely delirious with joy at the idea of people who want close-knit communities having those close-knit communities. As long as membership isn't compulsory.

        Having a family, including children, and belonging to a community is what normal people do and what they desire.
         
        In many societies there have been significant minorities who have chosen not to have family and kids. You know, monks and stuff. And nuns. If you had said that a majority of people want family, children and community I might have agreed with you.

        It's always worth testing theories against reality. In the real world today lots of people are choosing to have one child or none. Nobody forces them to make that choice. Nobody is force-feeding them birth control pills. And in the real world today there's not much visible enthusiasm for close-knit communities. When reality conflicts with a theory it's time to take another look at the theory.

        Desired and realized fertility have been diverging, though. I suspect among the elderly that the rate of regret for not having children among the childless is much higher than the rate of regret for having children among those who have them is.

        • Replies: @dfordoom

        Desired and realized fertility have been diverging, though. I suspect among the elderly that the rate of regret for not having children among the childless is much higher than the rate of regret for having children among those who have them is.
         
        Perhaps it's another sign of decadence. What we claim to want to do and what we actually do are becoming ever more disconnected.
      268. @dfordoom

        Everyone needs to think and behave just like Twinkie.
         
        We are Twinkie. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

        Twinkie fan club member here, and I know I’m not alone. Probably part of the silent majority.

        • Agree: res
        • Thanks: Twinkie
      269. @res
        Agreed. The question then becomes: how do we overcome it as a society? The campaign against fat shaming may be good in some ways, but it has removed a significant source of peer pressure to not be fat.

        I think some things which might help are:
        - More good examples. How to eat well without breaking the bank (e.g. see Alden's comments). How to incorporate physical activity into daily life (a simple example, I find it much less stressful to park in the back of parking lots and walk an extra couple of hundred feet).
        - Combined emphasis on diet and being active. The more I use my body the more I appreciate it working well. There are both virtuous and vicious cycles possible here. Many people are trapped in the vicious cycle of being so out of shape that exercising is a horrible experience.
        - Reworking food subsidies. In the US it is almost like someone is trying to make us obese.
        - Some way of exerting peer pressure in a supportive rather than shaming way. On a small scale this could be getting friends to try progressively harder fun but active activities.

        Any more ideas?

        One problem with the polarization of fitness is the good examples are so far from the people who need work/help that I don't think the latter can even envision the former as role models. They serve more as targets for envy and resentment. Which I think creates psychological pressure to NOT be like them.

        No one should ever be mocked for what rung of the ladder they’re on, they should only be mocked for refusing to try to climb.

        Among people I know, I counsel a set of 25 air squats when they wake up and a set of 25 air squats before going to bed. Then I casually ask them how it’s going whenever I see them next. It’s effective. It flows in the same vein as Jordan Peterson’s famous advice to “clean your room”.

      270. @Twinkie

        Availability
         
        In the past, scarcity put constraints on the low IQ, high impulsivity, low time horizon people from gorging and the necessity of physical labor prevented immobility. So only the rich (“fat cats”) became obese.

        You are right that today’s world is one of abundance. The constraints of scarcity and the necessity of physical labor are gone. The only positive adaptive mechanism or filter as such today are high IQ, low impulsivity, high time horizon, etc.

        I don’t know which has been worse for the lower classes, the gluttonous plenty and lack of worthwhile labor of today or the Malthusian near-starvation and physical toil of yesterday. I have my own preference Under this scenario, but I am okay with pain. But even I would crumble at seeing my little ones starve.

        Do the goldilocks 1950s win yet again?

        • Agree: Twinkie
      271. @dfordoom
        We wuz kangz until about 40-50 years ago. I say we double down on democracy and stuff. There are all sorts of good stuff just lying on the ground that we could pick up. Stuff like defense of free speech, defense of scholarship and intellectual inquiry, some notion of economic fairness, protection of minority views, etc.

        You're suggesting we concentrate on achieving goals that might be actually achievable? That might gain some degree of widespread popular support? That might even win a very small number of elites over to our side? That might actually lead to some limited victories?

        That's just crazy talk.

        We don’t want to reveal too much, but this is a very important comment.

      272. @MikeatMikedotMike
        I read your plan and would certainly be willing to implement it. As I'm sure you've noticed around the dissident web sphere in general and TUR specifically, none of these pundits ever have a plan to fix anything.

        I do have a question though, since the plan requires significant participation and expenditures from the feds: Would your plan benefit more, less or unchanged by eliminating a majority of the welfare entitlements currently in place?

        As you mentioned, incentivizing employment is crucial, and welfare incentivizes the opposite.

        Thank you for reading.

        Yes, the welfare entitlements would be gone, even including retirement. The multiplier would attach only to earned income—to work—in order to incentivize production. The pyramid scheme whereby wealth is transferred to unproductive people would be brought to end.

        I will not be politic to say it, but at least for those in the know it should be clear, that the whole thing is specifically designed as a clawback—from finance back to industry, from capital back to labor, from old back to young, from consumers back to producers, from debtors back to creditors. The idea is to spend a fixed period of time reversing all present conditions (i.e. popping the Everything Bubble) in order to swing the pendulum the other way, and then to reintroduce the gold standard so that the pendulum hangs straight down without swinging anymore.

      273. @Audacious Epigone
        Desired and realized fertility have been diverging, though. I suspect among the elderly that the rate of regret for not having children among the childless is much higher than the rate of regret for having children among those who have them is.

        Desired and realized fertility have been diverging, though. I suspect among the elderly that the rate of regret for not having children among the childless is much higher than the rate of regret for having children among those who have them is.

        Perhaps it’s another sign of decadence. What we claim to want to do and what we actually do are becoming ever more disconnected.

      274. @Audacious Epigone
        Crom be your God, iffen.

        … Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

        Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
        Because their words had forked no lightning they
        Do not go gentle into that good night…

        Dylan Thomas

      275. @Audacious Epigone
        Schoolmarm: People are not "wastematter".

        Hey, I got a right to defend myself.*

        *Quoting Paulie Walnuts.

      Comments are closed.

      Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS