The Last Weight Loss Advice You’ll Ever Need, Plus a Girl in a Bikini Drinking Water

“I need food, food to be strong for when the wolves come.” – Conan the Barbarian

communist fasting

Communist humor is like food:  not everyone gets it.

Normally I’d end a post like this with a warning, but this week I’ll put the warning straight up front.  I’m a freedom blogger with a side order of humor.  I’m not a doctor, except in my role as John Wilder – Civil War Surgeon to His Children®, Remover of Splinters and Super-Gluer® of Grievous Wounds.  The following advice has worked flawlessly for me and for thousands of others.  There may be some medical reason that it might not work for you.  As always, I suggest you go see a doctor, even though I’m pretty willful and just skipped that step entirely.  I’m not on any medications, so it’s hard to screw up medications that aren’t there.

I think, in all seriousness, this is one of the more important personal health posts I’ve written for anyone who wants to lose weight, which from the statistics is most of the United States.  As far as I can see, the biggest weight loss issues people normally face (besides your mother) are:

  • The diet isn’t working.
  • Okay, it’s working. But it’s working slooooooowly.
  • Wait, it didn’t work this week at all.
  • I’m not sure why, but this week I gained
  • Is it just me, or can everyone gain weight on a box of McDonalds® fries?
  • Wine or Beer or Chocolate Shakes or Twinkies® don’t have that many calories, right?
  • I just walked half a mile! I need to reward myself with a Double Whopper©.  Yes, with cheese.

I’m going to make a pretty bold statement:  I can fix every one of the issues above with one simple trick that doesn’t involve Marx, Lenin, or Castro.

Just stop eating.  Fast.  Not fast as in “quickly” but fast as in fasting:  not eating.

That’s it.

  • No books.
  • No seminars.
  • No cash payments to TV promoters.
  • No special food to buy.
  • No 1-800 phone numbers.
  • No special Internet offers.
  • No counting calories.
  • No communist dictators.

Thus, there’s very little profit opportunity in a business like this.  A cynical person might point out that the diet industry in the United States is worth about $70 billion every year, and the cost of being overweight rings in a tab of (my guess, based on decade-old numbers) of nearly half a trillion dollars in health care costs.  That cynical person might also note that it’s certainly not in the interests of people who are making hundreds of billions of dollars because a problem exists to actually fix that problem.

But imagine:  Just not eating . . . would save the United States $70 billion, and that’s just for starters.  It would also save a lot of money on food.  But more on that later.

fastingmeditation

When people say “listen to your body” I wonder if they’re schizophrenic or puppeteers, since those are the only people I know who talk to a body part.

Let’s talk about something more interesting:  me.  I wanted to wait to write this post until I had some pretty significant results – I wrote once before about fasting, and it was going well then.  How about now?

  • I’ve lost more than 20% of my body weight since January 1, 2019.
  • I feel great.
  • The average weight loss is about 1.5% a week.
  • The weight loss is consistent.
  • The weight loss is maintained.
  • I have to shorten my belt every week or two.
  • The ghost of Stalin is wondering how I did it.

Again, I’d say that fasting costs nothing, but that wouldn’t be true.  Fasting has saved me lots and lots of money, which will become apparent when I describe how I’m doing it below.

One other thing – I gave up drinking alcohol (beer, wine, etc.) as my weight loss progresses with the exception of two major milestones.  I figured that, besides motivation, giving up alcohol during my weight loss would be good because alcohol is the source of at least two things:  empty calories and bad decisions.  Besides, you can’t sit around on the back deck with a Budweiser® and claim you’re fasting.  Well, you can, but you’d be using Senate-level honesty.

So what exactly did I do?  I stop eating Saturday night most weeks.  Then I eat again from Friday at lunch until Saturday night.  In any given week, my window to eat is about 36 hours long.

Does it require willpower?  Yeah.  But it’s not a frightening level of willpower where I have to face the gom-jabbar or anything.  I think the biggest change for me has been breaking the conditioning of “you have to eat” that’s pretty prevalent.  I’ll listen to people saying “you have to eat” when I’m wearing size 32 jeans.  Until then?  Nope.

gomwilder

I know that the two of you who got this laughed.

Did I drink anything?  Sure.  Water.  Tea.  Coffee.  Club soda.  No diet soda – I’ve read that it stimulates and insulin response, and that’s the exact opposite of what we wanted.  Besides, I think diet soda tastes like I imagine antifreeze tastes.  Your mileage may vary.

So no eating anything?  Okay, I’ll come clean.  The first few weeks I had breath mints, but then I read the label and did the math and now I don’t have them at all unless I have a business meeting and don’t want to have bad breath that can melt a conference table.  Sugar free doesn’t mean calorie free.  I also brush my teeth twice as often.

I also cheat with dill pickles.  At 10 to 20 calories per day, it wasn’t much, and the pickles replaced salt I sweated out while exercising.  Yes, every day that I could get to the gym at lunch I would exercise.  It did two things – it burned a few extra calories, but after a workout I’m never hungry, so the afternoons are hunger free.

What is a typical week like?

Sunday is always great.  Generally no hunger at all.  Generally no food at all, either.  Not even the pickles I cheat with.

fastingdinner

And cleanup is a breeze!

Monday is normally pretty good.  I might have five calories of pickles.  Or ten.

Tuesday is the toughest day.  I believe what’s happening here is that my liver is all out of glycogen, a sugar that is stored in the liver for emergency use.  Any food in my digestive system is long gone.  That means that on Tuesday the body has to switch over to using fat.  By Tuesday night I’m feeling pretty good.  My energy levels are actually higher on Tuesday night than Tuesday morning.  Tuesday is the only day I feel really hungry.  The rest of the time, when I think I’m hungry, I’m really just . . . conditioned to be eating.  When I really sit back and examine if I’m hungry, the answer is almost always “no.”  Except on Tuesday.

You guessed it – if I get horribly hungry I have a few small dill pickles.

Wednesday and Thursday look pretty much the same as each other – my energy levels are up even though I’ve gone 72+ hours without any food.  There’s a strong focus and mental acuity that seems to emerge about this point.  It’s entirely likely that this account’s for Shakespeare’s quote from Julius Caesar, “Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look.”  I have no idea if Cassius ate pickles.

Thursday about midnight (when I’m writing this blog) I often go upstairs and cook some broth and/or have some cheese.  Total calories are about 40 (about the same as eight mints) but it seems to make sense to have this as a gentle kick-start for the digestive system.  The of all food I’ve consumed during the fast would probably be less than 100 calories, and certainly less than 200 calories, and almost never any sugar.  It’s like I’m a fashion model, but without the cocaine!

fastingbikini

Mmmmm, water.

Friday is FOOD DAY!  I’ll eat at lunch – say 11:30 or so, though one particular Friday I was feeling so good that I skipped going to lunch right away and pushed it off entirely until nearly 2pm.  My longest fast is about five and a half days.  I might go longer, just for grins, but five and a half days a week is worth a weekly weight loss of more than 1.5% of my body weight every week.

The weight loss is wonderful, but the other payoff is significant:  on Friday, the food is amazing.  The taste of crisp lettuce and tomato on a burger . . . gives me shivers.  The Chick-Fil-A® nuggets become a banquet.  One Friday I had tomato soup and a grilled cheese sandwich with bacon.  No king ever had such wondrous flavors hit his palate.  One of the reasons I’ve grown to love fasting is that food tastes so much better.  I guarantee you that after going 100 hours without food, you will enjoy and savor food more than you ever have in your life.

waterglass

Did you notice the big lunch buffet behind the lunch?

Food (mainly) tastes better, more flavorful, richer.  That is, food that is closest to being “natural” – processed junk is not appealing on day five of a fast.  One Friday I had a concession stand pretzel with concession stand cheese for lunch.  I threw half of it away – the pretzel tasted like paste and the cheese like a chemical byproduct meant to poison some of the horrible fist-sized spiders that only live in Australia.  I never would have imagined throwing food away after not eating for five days, but then again, I never would have pictured not eating for 134 hours.

The other effect I notice at the end of a fast is that my stomach is small.  I simply cannot eat as much as I used to eat.  I’m often full before I can finish a “normal” portion size at the local restaurant.  And if I try to eat three “normal” meals?  I get uncomfortably full.

So what do I eat during the 36 hours?  Anything I want to.  No limits on portions or content, with the previously mentioned exception of the wine and beer.  Why no wine and beer?  As I mentioned, there are a lot of bad decisions in those bottles, but also because I love a good glass of wine with a steak or a beer while I’m at the barbeque grill.  These are motivation for success.  It’s that simple.

closers

It’s also breakfast, the most important meme of the day.

I know that this diet might sound extreme, but I’ll counter that our current culture is probably a LOT more extreme than this diet.  Where in history has mankind had such a surplus of food?  There is no point in history that we’ve been as heavy as we are today, and that’s more extreme than fasting.  But let’s rewind:

A mammoth hunter back in 20,000 B.C. couldn’t jump into his Fred Flintstone® car and go down to the 7-11© to pick up a Slurpee™ when he was hungry.  Instead he’d carve into the mammoth that he and Ug got the previous week.  Oops, they ate it all.  Now they couldn’t exactly go down to Mammoth-Mart© and pick up some steaks, they had to go find one.  That might mean days of hunting, and it might mean that Fred and Ug might have to focus on the hunt.

One thing that’s for sure, the body would want to provide them with energy but not eat into the muscle needed for hunting.  Thus it would pull high-quality energy from the source created just for that purpose – fat.  Fat serves a very useful purpose in animals – future energy storage for times when it’s needed.

Metabolic slowdown has been observed to be much more of an issue with reduced calorie diets – your body understands that there’s food, but just not as much as it would like.  It reacts by lowering temperature and going into a semi-hibernation.  But when the body has no food?  Energy is actually required, so it provides it as needed.  It’s often that my best and most energetic workout of the week is on Thursday after fasting for over 100 hours.

mammoth

Gym fees were waived if the mammoth stomped on you.

Do I have to workout while fasting?  No, many people don’t.  But every calorie burned in a workout while I’m in a fasted state is a calorie of fat.  So if you do a 500 calorie workout five days in a fasted state, that’s 2500 calories.  Of fat.  A pound of fat is 3600 calories, so you’ve burned about 0.7 pound (500,000 kilograms) of fat for a fairly short workout.  Add that up?  In ten weeks that’s 7 pounds (3.2 grams).  Not bad – there are entire diets that don’t provide that kind of predictable success that I’ve experienced with just one aspect of my new lifestyle.

Yes, lifestyle.  When I started, my goal was to get to a weight that I had not too long after college.  Now?  My new final goal is to get back to my college weight.  I can see that fasting some duration each week (One day?  Three days?  I’m not sure.) will be a part of maintaining that goal weight – and it won’t be a burden, I actually like fasting after having done it.  It’s obvious to me that the things I tried before didn’t work because they weren’t simple.

This is simple.

DrEvilFasting

Okay, Dr. Evil may not be a real doctor.

Fasting is also something that Dr. Fung (LINK) has said he’s used to cure (yes, cure) type II diabetic patients.  As a kidney doctor, he got to see patients that had progressed pretty far toward death.  Dr. Fung noted that he was pretty frustrated being told that the only thing that he could do was make these patients comfortable until they died.  There was no cure.

Fung didn’t accept that.  Type II diabetes is a disease that’s related to lifestyle.  It’s really part of a bigger condition known as metabolic syndrome.  He began treating his patients with fasting.  The farther gone they were, the longer the fasts – in some cases 14 days.  He noted (and many subsequent studies have confirmed this) that fasting made them better.  It increased insulin sensitivity, and that was huge.

Insulin plays many roles in the human body – I believe I recall doctors had found at least 40 regulatory influences from insulin, but I can’t find that article right now, but did find a full dozen important things it does.  But (if you have a functioning pancreas) two important features are that it allows your body to admit sugar to cells for use.  That’s important.  But in type II diabetes a resistance is formed and more and more insulin has to be released to transport the sugar into the cell.

Uh-oh.

Insulin also signals your body to build and store fat.  So you’re using sugar poorly, but also being signaled to store more fat.  Thus?  Your metabolism is screwed up and your body wants to make more fat out of the sugar in your system.  So Dr. Fung came up with the idea to just stop type II diabetics from eating.  And it worked like a charm.

People are alive today because Dr. Fung had this idea.  Let that sink in.

Am I saying that it can cure you?  Dr. Fung thinks so.  But he also cautions that certain diabetic medications can be dangerous and need close monitoring so you don’t die, or something.  Blah blah blah.

vapesulin

I hear they’re going to start vaping Cheetos® soon.

But I’m not on any medications, so this seemed like a slam dunk.  I even spent $30 for a cheap-o blood sugar monitor to see if there was anything that would show up.  Nah.  Boring, which just means that my liver and pancreas are doing the things they’re supposed to do.

But the other meters in the house, the scale and my belt have certainly been heading in the right direction.

The other thing I’ve noticed is that I’ve saved a lot of money.  When you only have two lunches and two dinners a week, you don’t spend as much on groceries and hardly anything on restaurants.  Also, the fam doesn’t tend to go out to dinner when I’m fasting.  I’m certainly okay with going out, but I think they feel guilty.  So there’s that money saved, too.  Oh, and the wine and beer.  Not buying any of that saves money.  And we all know that mixing Amazon® and beer lead to purchases of solar string lights and ceramic garden gnomes because “those might look good on the deck.”  The worst part is trying to explain to The Mrs. exactly what I was thinking . . .

I am not exaggerating when I say that I have saved thousands of dollars by fasting.

This will likely be the last post on fasting until I’ve reached my primary goal and learned what I have to do to stay there, forever.  And I’ll only post that if it’s interesting.

In addition to the Doctor Fung reference, the sub-Reddit on fasting is a wealth of information – mainly good information, but you should do your own research:

Here’s a link to the Reddit on fasting: /Fasting

Here’s a link to a Reddit thread showing my results aren’t unique:  Reddit /Fasting Dude

Here’s a link to about a guy who fasted for over a year:  Scottish Fasting Dude

 

Creative Destruction and a Girl in a French Maid Outfit

“Well, they’re wrong.  You are creative.  You are damn creative, each and every one of you.  You are so much more creative than all of the other dry, boring morons that you work with.” – The Office

unemployment

Hmm, you’d think the road sign outside of the office might be a hint?

A good friend of mine works out in Silicon Valley, and related a (fairly) short story about being a hiring manager after the dotcom bust – he works in the dreaded Human Resources Department.  Somehow a gentleman with a Ph.D. in multiplexing signals on fiber optics got a job interview with him.  This particular job interview was fairly short.  My friend said, “Umm, we’re looking for a mechanical engineer.  With no experience.  Why would you be looking for a job with us?”

“I’m looking for anything.  Anything.”

“I hope you saved your money,” my friend thought.  What he said was:  “We’ll be in touch.”  That’s what recruiters say when you’re in their office and they’re really tired of the stink of failure and hope that it won’t wear off on them.  They especially don’t like getting it on their shoes.

The economy is in a constant state of change, and has been since 1800 or so.  Joseph Schumpeter, the dead economist, is credited with coming up with a name for this – Creative Destruction.  That’s an academic foul for two reasons:  First, some other dead economist else came up with the idea.  Second, yet another dead economist, a different one this time, used the name before he did.  So, like Columbus, he got credited for something someone else did.  The nice thing is that you can spend your spare time wondering what you can do with a dead economist.  I like to drag mine out at Christmas and decorate him with little graphs, sort of like Martha Stewart.

martha

I like to add cinnamon to my economist.  Makes him smell more festive.

Whoever first used the name is unimportant.  Like I said, he’s dead.  But the idea of Creative Destruction originated with Karl Marx.  Karl came up with the idea (by observing economics in the 19th Century) that existing production and existing productive forces were periodically destroyed by the economy.  This was a phenomenon of the Industrial Revolution.  Innovation among clever people kept changing the world.  First the loom replaced weavers.  Then the factory replaced artisans.  And finally the PEZ® dispenser replaced scores of servants that would unwrap and gently place the PEZ© in your mouth while wearing fancy-schmancy servant clothes (including white gloves!) after executing a perfect curtsy and pulling the PEZ® off the silver tray with hand-crafted PEZ™ tongs.

Ahh, the Victorian Era.

pezgirlz

I can only afford a single PEZ®-maid.  Talk about frugality.

This change in production had the side effect of making lots of weavers, craftsman, and PEZ™-maids unemployed.  The transition was difficult, and it very much was a First World Problem.  It’s not like goat herders in Botswana become unemployed when a goat factory comes online – no.  There’s no factory for goat herding, at least not yet.  And, for the record, I have no idea if there are goats in Botswana, and I don’t care enough to Google® it, and, honestly, have only the basic knowledge that Botswana is somewhere near where people get Ebola and you can’t get decent Internet.  That’s enough knowledge about Botswana for me.

firstworld

The above is an example of a First World Problem and a good example of Creative Destruction – I kept one cell phone for six years, and had museums calling me to see if they could have it. 

Even though Creative Destruction was (and is) a First World Problem, and even though this Problem has created more wealth than any other system in the history of humanity (poor people in the United States today have better nutrition and entertainment available to them than Roman Emperors did) it still sucks when the Creative Destruction Fairy picks your job to be the one that gets axed.  Marx echoed this and predicted Silicon Valley when he wrote that capitalism grows “ . . . by the conquest of new markets and the more thorough exploitation of the old ones.”  Strangely, that also describes my high school dating career.

But I digress.

Silicon Valley is built on just quote from Marx in the paragraph above.  The concept of “business disruption” is exactly what Silicon Valley does best.

Cabs?  Let’s disrupt it with Uber™.  This refinement will allow people to have cheaper cab rides.  Oh, and the money will be more concentrated, and the “cab drivers” will be paid less.  Nearly every business model out of Silicon Valley is based on this disruption – from consumer goods (Amazon®) to communication (Apple©) to “friends” (Facebook™).  If you look at the most successful companies the world has ever seen, each of them was founded on the destruction of an old economic paradigm.  The more fundamental and important the paradigm, the larger the success.

It’s like the economy is a game, and the more fundamental the rules violation, the bigger the payoff – say for example you were the only guy in the NFL® that recognized that there was no rule preventing you from using an axe however you wanted during a game.  My guess is that you’d have a pretty good pass rush if you did that – and sacking the quarterback would be permanent.

inigo

Does Creative Destruction mean what I think it means?

Marx felt that Creative Destruction, over time, would lead to people that “produce” losing all of their money to people who were merely financiers.  And, if you look at it, he’s right.  The financial sector produces less (directly) but finances all of this disruption.  If you’ve been a reader of this blog for very long, I’m certain that you won’t be surprised by my conclusion:  just because Marx was right in understanding disruption, don’t for a second think that I agree with him on his solutions.

Similar to Darwin’s theory, capitalism requires competition.  The stronger business survives.  Islands of the economy free from competition (government sponsored monopolies – like electric companies, or government sponsored businesses – like electric cars) don’t generally provide innovation.  Elon Musk must be some sort of weird innovator, because in one sense he’s disrupting the undisruptable – government monopolies on electric cars and space launch systems.

But Marx was no Musk.  Marx’s solution is simple.  Charge people what something costs to make, rather than for what value it provides – which means that every worker, for instance, makes the same wage.  Rip the production from the hands of the owners and give it to people who don’t innovate.  Free the economy from ruinous competition.  Power to the people!  Oh, and a totalitarian government to enforce it all because people don’t work the way that Marx imagines they do.

Creative Destruction is real.  But in the end, this replacement of old versus new generally increases the overall wealth in society.  I’m not speaking of the virtual importation of slave labor and environmental degradation through “free” trade agreements that are derived in secret and written on thousands and thousands of pages.  No.  But actual free trade among equals generally makes everyone wealthier. And the reality is that regardless of what controls a (fairly) free government puts in place, disruption is going to happen.

marx

From each according to his ability, to each according to your mother.

So what can you do about it?  Get a Ph.D. in fiber optics?  Well, my friend was right.  If it pays enough that for the short time it’s extraordinarily valuable, sure.  But that’s like hitting a career lottery.  If I were to give advice to a younger person, I’d say something a bit different.  I’d suggest that you look to careers that minimize the ability of Creative Destruction to ruin your Friday.

Let’s look at bad career ideas:  number one on my list of “sounds good but it’s really stupid” is software engineer.  Any career that pits me against a billion people in India and a billion people in China is a bad career.  Remember, if you’re one in a million in China, there’s a thousand other dudes just like you.  The numbers are really bad – and they don’t even have to come to the United States to compete with you.  Heck, they can pay recent grads $5,000 a year.  So they can hire at least a dozen people to do what you do.  Those are not good odds.

So, a good quality of a Creative Destruction-resistant job would be that it has to be local, or has some sort of license requirement that prevents everyone in Shanghai from applying.  Lawyers, doctors, and engineers have gotten the licensing-thing down.  It’s been so successful that some states even apply it to nail polisher-people (whatever the term is for that).

crashtest

New openings daily!  And that’s just in your skull!

Construction is has a lot of the attributes required, but it seems like Honduras has moved here to do that for us.  So that’s kinda out.  But it does point out that a job that requires actual citizenship might be a good thing.  Teaching would fall under that designation, but so much of teaching today is following a set curriculum that’s based on a set of tests that the process itself is rigged against deviation.

That may be part of the point.  Today Creative Destruction’s plan is to replace you with the lowest cost alternative, like:

  • An App
  • An Algorithm
  • A Process
  • A Batch of Cheap People Working Remotely
  • Artificial Intelligence

Avoid jobs where you can be easily replaced.  I’m not going to sit here and make a huge list and rank it and put a likelihood that you’ll be a victim of Creative Destruction in the future.  I’m not that psychic, unless I’m following my strict broccoli and chocolate diet.  No.  But I’m betting you can start to come up with your own list.

Okay, I’ll give you another one:

Blogger!  Heck, the pay may be zero, but you can always work for the fame, glory and sweet, sweet PEZ®!

Never Give Up, Never Surrender

“Never give up, never surrender.” – Galaxy Quest

reeducate

Originally I’d intended or the interview with Dr. Dutton, co-author of At Our Wits’ End which I reviewed in two parts (Review Part One At Our Wits’ End Review Part The First:  Increasing Intelligence and Civilization, Review Part Two At Our Wits’ End Review Part II: I.Q. and the Fate of Civilization (Hint, It’s Idiocracy)) to be here – I’m still working on the transcription.  It’s not done because the raw transcript is over 10,000 words, and family came in from out of town unexpectedly via parachute assault, and we were poorly defended.  I should have the interview complete by next Monday’s post.

One of the themes and concerns I see on a continual basis in my wandering around the web is that we are living in the endgame of a society.  Dutton and Woodley quoted Charles Murray discussing the eerie way that we get the sense “. . . that the story has run out.”  There is a sense of national exhaustion.  It’s hard to do things.  It’s like we have become a nation of teenage boys on summer vacation with no summer job.

As a nation, the United States built a continent-spanning railroad in about six years, mainly by hand, with the only explosive available being black powder.  I don’t know about you, but that just seems like so much work when I could be in my basement eating Cheetos® and playing Fallout™ instead.  California, at least, has the right idea.  They have been spending billions of dollars on a high speed railroad to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco.  This project was started in the 1990’s, so it must be nearly complete now.  Oops.  They’re pretty sure this high speed rail line will never be built, likely due to the high concentration of Cheetos© and video games in the state.

train

From a societal standpoint we seem to be at or near the point of no return, headed in the wrong direction on multiple fronts.  It’s not just the inability to tackle or construct big things.  Heck, the Empire State Building was designed in weeks and built in a little over a year.  Freedom Tower in New York City?  Over seven years of construction, and that doesn’t include the years of design that had to take place before anyone was even bribed.

wtc

It’s not just railroads and buildings that seem to be headed the wrong direction:

  • Political Violence. Wearing the wrong hat will get you fired – the Left has Hataphobia©.
  • We all know that the bad math is eventually replaced by firing squads, but like winning the lottery, we get to dream first.
  • Pink?  Purple?  Are you an anime character?
  • Bad tattoos. You’re gonna have to live with that tattoo sleeve when you’re in the rest home and have to explain to the kids changing your bedpan how cool Justin Bieber® was.
  • Constant remakes of television shows and movies that weren’t that good in the first place. Why won’t they remake some quality television, like Hogan’s Heroes®?

It’s easy to give up.  In fact, every bit of the media challenges us to give up our values.  We’re told we should celebrate children being pumped full of hormones after they make the brave and courageous decision at the age of seven that biology was a mistake and they’re really DeeAnn instead of Dean.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust a seven year old to find the remote control around my house.  Trust them with decisions about pumping chemicals into their body that will utterly change the future?  Sure.  Makes sense.

blue

The politics of the media have reversed:  it used to be that free speech was celebrated.  Now?  Free speech is celebrated, but only if the free speech in question follows the values of the elite.  For a brief moment in time, platforms like Twitter® really were able to amplify voices that cared about values.  Now?  Those voices will be silenced from those platforms.  From financial systems.  From jobs and eventually housing, if the Left can manage it.

I’ve seen this world-inversion where every value that was known to be good and true is vilified and every value that was known to be evil is celebrated.  It’s at this time I really need to pause and remind our viewing audience that the central tenant of Christianity isn’t “Do what thou wilt.”  That’s an utterly different religion with a boss who smells like sulfur with shiny horns and a pitchfork.  Except in Clown World™, “do what thou wilt” is the single highest value.

Alright John Wilder, you’ve convinced me and depressed me.  Why should we bother to continue?

It’s simple.  We should continue because it’s what we’re born to do.  Going gently onto that goodnight?  If you’re reading this blog, that’s not your style.  And despite what media is trying to convince you – what is good and right is not finished.  That’s why they’re so desperately attempting to use the media at this point – to create despair.  Despair is the main tool of evil – it causes us to curl up like we’ve been eating too much soy and give up without a fight.

reboot

Don’t give in.

How should we continue?

We continue by living our daily lives and living them unashamedly.  Living them devoted to what is good and true.  By having wonderful children.  By teaching those children the values that we know are true.  By teaching them to discriminate between good and evil, and how to choose good.  By being good role models.  By being fit.  By being prepared for the tougher times ahead.

france

We continue because that’s what we do.  I do think that times in the next decade will be tougher than the times a decade or two decades before.

That just means we’re lucky.  Calm seas don’t make good sailors.  Easy lives don’t make moral men.

But I will get that transcript done before next week, paratroopers or not.

At Our Wits’ End Review Part II: I.Q. and the Fate of Civilization (Hint, It’s Idiocracy)

“As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point.  Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits.  Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent.  But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction.  A dumbing down.  How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence.  With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.” – Idiocracy

idiocracy2

The pictures from this post are mainly from Idiocracy©, which you should watch before it’s an actual documentary.

This is the second part of the review of the book At Our Wits’ End.  The first part can be found here at At Our Wits’ End Review Part The First:  Increasing Intelligence and Civilization.  Again, I recommend the book, and the link is below.  As of this writing I don’t get any compensation if you buy it here.  Buy it anyway.  It’s an important book.

When last we left Western Civilization, we’d reached the smartest point ever in history.  Isaac Newton was an example of the genius produced at this time in history.  Dutton and Woodley have data to suggest that 1750 was the peak of intelligence for Western Civilization.

Is there any evidence for this?

Certainly.

Life in 1770 was fairly comparable to life in 1470.  Given three hundred years, things hadn’t changed much at all.  But by 1804, life was dramatically different.  The Industrial Revolution® was a product of the accumulated intellectual capital of the preceding five hundred years and it changed everything.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution©, natural selection occurred in society through the culling of the poor via disease and poverty along with the execution/prison death for about 2% of the stupider males.  This led to the population getting smarter.  But the Industrial Revolution© created an economic abundance in the West like never seen before.  Surplus food and goods were now available in society.  Medicine improved and kept the weak children of rich people alive.

famtree.jpg

Ahh, selection in progress.

Medicine also kept more of the children of poor people and poor single mothers alive.  As established previously,

  • Poor impulse control is correlated with lower I.Q.,
  • Single motherhood is correlated with lower I.Q.,
  • Less overall wealth is correlated with lower I.Q., and
  • Having more children is correlated with lower I.Q.

Again, none of these predict the behavior in individuals.  The friend I have with the greatest number of children has a very high I.Q.  There are several very smart people I know that don’t have a lot of money.  And anyone under the influence of testosterone and being 18 has really crappy impulse control.  I will also remind everyone being rich doesn’t mean you’re virtuous.  Neither does being smart. But in group behavior, the correlations above are well documented.

Dutton and Woodley note that they’re not the first ones to see the inherent problems with the removal of natural selection in a wealthy society.  Benedict Morel, named after a mushroom, observed this problem in 1857 between surrenders in France.  Francis Galton wrote in 1865 that “Civilization preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands.”  Ouch.

But it’s true.  As of this week, every member of our family wears glasses as Pugsley was the last to leave the “good eyes” club.  And The Mrs. developed type I diabetes when she was 12.  Prior to the 1920’s this was a near immediate death sentence.  However, since insulin was isolated and entered the market in the 1930’s, she’s alive and had kids, namely Pugsley and The Boy.  Her genes would never have reproduced without the Industrial Revolution™.

hiq.jpg

Spoiler alert:  they’re never going to be ready.

Charles Darwin wrote an entire book on the problem:  The Descent of Man.  It really wasn’t a light “summer at the beach” read as it described humanity getting progressively . . . worse.  Smarter people use contraception more (remember, the prohibition against birth control went away as religious beliefs changed).  And lower I.Q. people not only have more children, they actively desire more children.

Further factors that have developed as society absorbed the wealth of the great capitalist expansion include the development of a welfare state.  That’s a problem if you want smart people around.  Welfare states support and encourage single mothers (lower I.Q.) to have more children and ensures that those children survive.  Dutton and Woodley also note that data suggests that welfare may encourage those who are also low in “personality factors” (agreeableness and conscientiousness) to have more children.  What does that lead to?  A population that is more impulsive, paranoid, apathetic and aggressive.  By coincidence these traits are also associated with lower I.Q.

So, numbers increase on the lower end of the I.Q. scale.  What about on the upper end?  Are smart people are having lots of babies?  No.  Opening high value careers up to intelligent women causes them to have fewer babies.  Higher I.Q. people also use birth control more frequently, and actually desire to have smaller families.  So not only are lower I.Q. people having more lower I.Q. babies, smarter people are having fewer high I.Q. children.

brawn2

But at least they have what plants crave!

Having a wealthy society also increases the desire for people from less wealthy countries to immigrate to the rich countries.  As we shown in the previous post (I.Q. – uh- What is it good for? Absolutely Everything. Say it again.), less wealth generally correlates to lower societal I.Q.  Does this translate to real-world outcomes?  Yes.  Dutton and Woodley cite Danish studies that show the average Dane I.Q. to be around 100.  However, the I.Q. of non-Western immigrants is roughly 86 in Denmark.  Immigrants certainly aren’t making Denmark smarter.

futuretown

To think, you could live in a paradise like this . . . .

Since intelligence is 0.80 correlated with genetics, they and their children actually can’t make Denmark smarter.  This result would indicate that wealth, quality of life, and ability to self-govern would decrease in countries facing high immigration, while crime would increase.  As a completely unrelated note, the United States has more immigrants than any country on Earth, with 40% of the population (How the Constitution Dies) now being either first generation or born of a foreign mother.

But What About The Flynn Effect?

The Flynn Effect refers to a general rise in IQ scores between 1930 and 1980, noted by a guy named (drum roll) Flynn, James Flynn – he’ll take his data shaken, not stirred.  For whatever reason I.Q. scores seemed to be increasing.  However, Dutton and Woodley explain that the Flynn effect is most likely environmental in nature (i.e., better nutrition) and not genetic.

Apparently the I.Q. test sub-scores that show improvement tend to favor very specific areas of intelligence, namely those areas that are environmentally influenced.  There is a parallel with height, they point out:  in 1900, average height in Great Britain was 5’6”.  In 1970 it was 5’10”.  But growth has been in leg length (which is more correlated with environmental factors) versus torso length (which is more genetic).  People are taller due to nutrition.

Additionally, schools train more for abstract thought than they would have in a mostly agrarian society, which would have been the norm throughout the West in 1930.  Country schoolhouses didn’t need to teach logic puzzles, since they were focused on traditional subjects.  Now children are drilled in the kinds of questions that are used on I.Q. tests – and if you practice, you do get better even if you’re not smarter.  On some I.Q. tests administered to youth, they’re not considered to be valid if the child had the test in the past year, so practicing the kinds of questions on the test will likely improve scores.

The bad news is that evidence suggests that the Flynn effect has stopped around somewhere around the year 2000 and is now headed downward.  Reaction times (a proxy for intelligence) have dropped.  Reaction times aren’t as closely correlated with I.Q. as many of the other things we’ve talked about, but they are directly measurable.  It may be a bad ruler, but it’s a ruler that we can use to compare across time.

Also confirming the I.Q. drop is work done by Augustine Kong, a Chinese researcher at the University of Iceland studied genetic components known to increase I.Q.  They’re declining.  The average Icelander born in 1990 wasn’t as smart as one born in 1910, and the genetics aren’t there to support an increasing I.Q.  The opposite appears to be happening.

Dutton and Woodley conclude that based on the metrics they reviewed, the “average” Englishman of 1850 would be in the top 15% of intelligence today in England.  Oops.  And apparently all tests surveyed indicate declining I.Q.  That’s a problem:  if average intelligence is declining, and intelligence is a bell curve, there will be fewer geniuses and a smaller “smart fraction” that is able to put run and hold together a technologically advanced society.  Or build a SR-71 Blackbird.  Or a Saturn V rocket.

Just like a bad horror movie, it keeps getting worse.  The very temperament of genius is changing – from stereotypical genius – a very driven, self and work-preoccupied Einstein to Todd from corporate:  intelligent, socially skilled, agreeable, and conscientious.  Thankfully the genius “Todd” will provide us really detailed policy manuals and snappy PowerPoints® instead of that useless groundbreaking physics.

Creativity is correlated with I.Q. but only up to an I.Q. of 120.  As a further confirmation, creativity scores have declined, therefore . . . expect less Monty Python® on TV and more “Ow, My Balls©.”

tv2

And people say that there’s nothing good on TV.

On the bright side, the murder rate is down.  Why would that be so?  Murder, violence and impulsive behavior is correlated with lower I.Q.  Dutton and Woodley theorize that the environment that creates violence is down – given a robust welfare system it’s less likely that financial pressures or social pressures are as high.  You kid won’t be starving to death as they stuff their face full of Cheetos® while they sit on the couch playing X-Box™, and since obesity is up, killing people is such hard work, anyway.

Why do Civilizations Rise and Fall?

Like your mother-in-law, early civilizations have a low I.Q. – they’re dangerous places to be.  But over time group selection pressures intensify, the people become highly religious and ethnocentric – the hill people want to kill and eat the valley people, and vice-versa, and everybody wants to kill the group whose god makes them wear purple.  The nice thing about strong religion and ethnocentric behavior is it allows your group to compete well.

If your religion is good enough, and if you get enough selection for I.Q., you just might end up with a baby civilization on your hands.  Once I.Q. increases, conditions get better.  An elite is formed, and, since they have nothing better to do, they begin to question all of the social traditions that made civilization smart and wealthy.

The elite begins to compete on who can be more altruistic and ethnocentrism (favoring your own people) becomes badthink.  All of the values and norms that created the civilization are despised and thrown out.  Society begins to decline.  “. . . extreme views . . . eventually become the norm.”

Resources are then taken from those that are more capable and given to those that are less capable, which is called fairness since all people are equal, right?  I.Q. drops.  Innovation drops.

Then?  The elite is purged, and the civilization collapses.  The authors anticipate the following response, that:  “. . . it doesn’t work precisely with some obscure civilization or other; or demand that we respond to an infinite regress of every unlikely possible alternative explanation . . . .”  Yeah, even academics get denial.

whitehouse2

Okay, maybe it won’t take that long.

Does This Explain Past History with Other Civilizations?

Sure.

  • Ancient Greece.
  • Islamic Civilization. 64% of important Islamic scientists lived before 1250.  100% of them lived before 1750.
  • China.  It came very close to its own industrial revolution.
  • The Roman Empire.  Why didn’t Rome (as awesome as it was) have an industrial revolution?  Contraception and abortion were approved of.  Higher IQ women generally had fewer children, and this collapsed Rome prior to that great leap that would have led to Maximus™ brand Ocelot Bitez® and Roman tanks.  Man, I wish we would have had Roman tanks.

What About Western Civilization?

Western Civilization has followed the same cycle, but with this important difference:  Christianity had a taboo against contraception and abortion which kept higher I.Q. women having children.  The Spring of Western Civilization was from 1000 to 1500.  During this time, it was highly religious and highly ethnocentric, just like the model.

The Summer lasted from 1500 to the Industrial Revolution©.  This period was more rational, questioning, and the Renaissance brought culture and art to the forefront.

Autumn – Industrial Revolution™ to last Tuesday.  We find ourselves with the elite questioning society.  The ideas and thoughts that the civilization is capable of are reaching their highest level as we harvest the fruit of hundreds of years of human advancement.

We may be in Winter or close to it.  The hallmark of winter is a declining I.Q. as the less intelligent spew out children like a society-destroying genetic AR-15.  Culturally, Winter is characterized by the reproduction of good ideas from the past rather than coming up with new ones.  Multiculturalism and Marxism are “anti-rational” and “their adoption should show how far g (I.Q.) has fallen.”  Dutton and Woodley quote Charles Murray with the phrase that describes the era – “The feeling that the story has run out.”

The authors are not certain we are there, but feel that it’s worth noting that things don’t look very good.

Thanks, guys.

Are There Solutions?

I’ll leave you to read the book for those alternatives.  I’ll summarize it by noting that the solutions provided are not easy choices, and unlikely to be implemented in any democracy.  I.Q. drop is caused by our society and values, and won’t be undone by a society with our values.  The authors further suggest that maybe we should spend some time saving our knowledge so it’s easier for the next group through.

Dark.

I still recommend the book.  I also recommend Dr. Dutton’s YouTube® work.  I’ve linked to a good one down below.  Next week I should have the transcription done of my interview of him, and it’ll shine a bit more light on these conclusions.

How the Constitution Dies

 

point4

Soldiers heading towards Omaha Beach.

When I was in grade school the teachers spoke of the Constitution with reverence.  As second graders, we listened as the teacher told the story of how it was written and the freedoms it guaranteed us and the responsibilities that it demanded of us.  My grade school teachers were all married women, and they loved America.  It was a small town, and the teachers had grown up in the area.  Some of them had taught their own children and their own grandchildren in the same school where the chalkboard dust, lead paint dust, water from lead-soldered pipes, and asbestos floor tiles soaked into my skin daily.  Even the early reader books were taped together with yellowing cellophane tape at the bindings, and most of the books had been printed decades before.  I got to See Spot Run like legions of boys before me, running my fingers over the same dog-eared pages that had been read for years, young mouths quietly sounding out the words.

And these boys before me, who had sat in the same desks, drew beginning math on the same blackboards, pulling chalk from the same worn, wooden tray that I did, got paddled in the same principal’s office that I did.  They had traveled the world to strange places that their teachers never named when they opened the geography books during the time they spent in second grade.  These were places with foreign names like Guadalcanal.  Bastogne.  Chosin Reservoir.  Da Nang.

One of these boys in particular, a blonde haired young Ranger, was barely eighteen when he was shot climbing the cliffs at Pointe Du Hoc on the sixth of June, 1944.  His sister was a friend of my father.  As a young boy that Ranger sat in that same room, learning the same math decades before I was born.  He sat in that same classroom just a few short years before he was buried in Normandy in late spring at the age of 18.  No member of his family could afford to visit his grave until over fifty years had passed and his sister walked to his grave and touched its cold marble stone and ran her fingers over his name.  Despite that, the young Ranger isn’t lonely – he is surrounded by 9,387 of his comrades who died during the invasion of France.

point2

Rangers climbing Pointe du Hoc.

The teachers, those mothers, in the distant past had taught the children the value of patriotism.  The value of the Constitution.  The belief that freedom was a great gift from both God and our forefathers and was an idea and an ideal worth fighting for was taught to them in school and in church.  Those boys who travelled far wearing Army green, Navy blue, the camouflage of the Marines, and eventually Air Force blue were mainly the sons of farmers, used to hard work that started early in the morning and sometimes went too far into the night when the cows were calving.  The things that they were told that were true were God, freedom, family, and country and that you always had to work hard for these things, and sometimes you had to fight for them.  And sometimes die for them.

Even the cartoons as I was growing up were infused with patriotism:

Corny?  Yes.  

The school was torn down some time ago – I don’t know when.  A bond issue was finally passed, and a new school was built.  There aren’t many more students than when I went there, but there are new classrooms.  These new schools are gleaming with whiteboards and new furniture and new books, and from the pictures you can see that the kids look a lot like the kids from when I went there; but the connection with 100 years of history went when the building was torn down.

Change is inevitable, but the one thing that my teachers taught us was that the Constitution was a rock, something special, something that every American had shared for hundreds of years.  It was important, and it protected us, and protected our freedom.

I believed that, the way the boys that live forever on Pointe du Hoc did.

rangers

Ladders used to scale Pointe du Hoc.

Today, however, the population of the United States is at least 14% foreign born, but I’d bet that number undercounts illegal aliens.  Second generation Americans, people born here of immigrants, account for at least 10% of the population.  A quarter of the population of this country simply has no connection to anything American.  10% were born here, but were raised in a household that had little to no connection to anything American.

I was working in Houston on one particular job, often late into the night.  The cleaning crew came in after 8 PM, and I was often still there.  I’d taken Spanish in school, and would share a sentence or two with the very nice cleaning woman who came by.  She spoke no English.  One day I asked her, in Spanish, “Why don’t you learn English?”  I realized that this nice person would have no chance to move up, no way to take part in the economic miracle that is the United States without English.

“Es muy dificil.”  It’s too difficult.

The cleaning woman is very nice, but has no connection in any meaningful way to the United States.  I’m sure she’s had children by now as 21% of children in the United States have foreign-born mothers.  Her children likewise have had no part in building this country and have no reverence for the principles of its founding, or the sacrifices made along the way to create freedom.  This is similar to me if I moved to say, England, or Denmark.  I love England.  I love Denmark.  I’m ethnically related to those areas and admire both cultures.

If I moved to England I’d always be the Yankee.  Or Amerikansk in Denmark.  My kids, even if I had kids there, wouldn’t be English.  They wouldn’t be Danish.  They’d be the “kids of that American that lives here.”  Maybe if my kids were born there, and then worked hard to assimilate away from the American attitudes and culture of their parents, then they one day the kids they had would be considered English or Danish.  I’m an American, a product of American culture and no citizenship documents will ever change that.

25% of the people in the United States, however, simply aren’t American by any sort of rational criteria.  One out of four – an amazing number and a number that is going to grow based on current trends and census data, perhaps to one in three by 2060.  The United States has never had such high numbers of foreign born in history.

As these numbers grow, the electorate changes to an electorate that has no history of a representative democracy – most people coming to the United States are from places where elections are not free and fair, and in many cases the politicians from those countries are so corrupt to make Illinois look like a Boy Scout® camp.  These are also places where constitutions are meant not for the people, but for the state, and are changed out with stunning regularity, often accompanied by firing squads and atrocity.  They expect better here, but they also are ready-made for the politicians that promise them the world.

The political class, however, is excellent at creating and playing on resentment in new immigrants with no history of good government.  Division is the strength of these politicians.  “Why do these people have a say as to who is an American?”  “Abolish ICE.”  “You deserve free education, free healthcare, free housing, free food.”  “Living wage for all.”  “Common sense gun laws.”  Thankfully, native language broadcasting is available to all of these new residents and new citizens so that they can avoid assimilation into the culture.

These residents also don’t have teachers that teach that the United States is good, that the Constitution is a meaningful document – times have changed and that just isn’t the “woke” take.  They don’t get any of this from their family, either.  Their family simply doesn’t know anything about freedom and the Constitution in most cases, and probably wouldn’t care if they did.  It’s a document that foreigners put together – it is not part of their history at all.

point3

Pointe du Hoc, after it had been taken.

As I said, I had faith in the Constitution.  It was a great wall that both defined and constricted government, but in recent decades “rights” have been made up from layer after layer of interpretation that have nothing to do with the original text.  On the other hand, rights that are written about clearly in plain language are somehow interpreted to be so limited that they hardly exist at all.  But there are still some protections that exist, as long as there’s a majority of five to four.  Change that number?  Watch those liberties evaporate as Justices that admire the constitution of South Africa, the one that’s being interpreted to allow the theft of land, become a majority.

If we have politicians that actively create divisions between Americans with a heritage of limited government and an increasing number of people for whom the history of the United States means nothing, the Constitution won’t mean anything.  It will be a speed bump for those who have no connection to it and who have no love of it.  The Constitution in the hands of those who hate the limitations it puts on them will, in the long run, provide no safety at all as it is interpreted away, as the press revolts against it, and as the newly imported electorate ignores it.

And what meaning will the blonde Ranger of Pointe du Hoc have then?

Colonies, Leftists, Madonna (sort of) and Science Fiction Movie Casting

“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” – Life of Brian

gaul

Well, since the Romans subjugated what is now France, Britain, Germany, and England, it’s sad that they never managed to flourish as independent countries.  Because colonialism is awful, right?

I was having a conversation over the phone with a friend who is a little bit more politically correct than me.

“Maybe colonialism wasn’t such a bad thing after all.”

Coming out of the blue like that, it was, I could tell, a difficult concept for him.  Certainly he understood the words, but in the life he leads, I imagine absolutely no one would have said anything like that to him, ever.  He was currently in a very, very, very liberal establishment.  His brain might have broken from the unapproved thought.  It wasn’t as bad as saying, “I decided that maybe killing and eating calico kittens and wearing their fur as a hat might be a thing I’m in to,” but it was close.  One thing I like to do, in real life and in this blog, is to make people think thinks they haven’t thinked.  Very few pleasures exist for me as when I make people make that face which I call an Oh-face, as in, “Oh, my, I never thought of that.”

Of things that have a bad reputation since the year 1900, the two things that come to mind with the worst reputation are Madonna and Colonialism.    And nobody wants to be compared to Madonna.  What spurred my comment to my friend was an article by Dr. Bruce Gilley, of that noted bastion of conservatism, Portland State University.

madonna

Madonna is over 60 now, which might explain her overuse of eye makeup.  Oh, and the hormone replacement therapy . . . . 

Dr. Gilley put forth a relatively straight-forward question:  Is there a case for colonialism?

His paper, The Case for Colonialism (you can find a .pdf of it here – LINK) was published in a scholarly journal with the unlikely name of Third World QuarterlyThird World Quarterly was described by at least one scholar as a location to come up with anti-colonial ideas.  The reaction was predictable.  Over 10,000 people signed a petition at Change.org noting, in part, that “We thereby call on the editorial team to retract the article and also to apologize for further brutalizing those who have suffered under colonialism.”

It would be difficult to find many people who had suffered under colonialism who were still alive, since the last thing even remotely like an atrocity was the British reaction to the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya.  I can’t find numbers that the Mau-Mau killed, which is a key indicator to me that the number was larger than anyone wants to admit.  Did the British commit atrocity in response?  Yes.  So, if you were counting, probably the last colonial victims would date to the 1950’s, making the minimum age of someone who suffered under colonialism somewhere in their 70’s.

In my mind it’s also pretty tough to claim that a magazine article brutalized anyone, but maybe it’s just the “magazine article proof” vest I wear and a vestige of “magazine article proof vest-wearing privilege.”  For the record, I wear the vest because I was once highly offended The Family Circus.

steve

Yes it DOES look like Steve Buscemi!  Triggered!

Gilley has the temerity to point out that since colonialism ended, things have not always been the picture of health in Africa.  In his paper, Dr. Gilley notes:

Yet until very late, European colonialism appears to have been highly legitimate and for good reasons.  Millions of people moved closer to areas of more intensive colonial rule, sent their children to colonial schools and hospitals, went beyond the call of duty in positions in colonial governments, reported crimes to colonial police, migrated from non-colonised to colonised areas, fought for colonial armies and participated in colonial political processes – all relatively voluntary acts.  Indeed, the rapid spread and persistence of Western colonialism with very little force relative to the populations and areas concerned is prima facie evidence of its acceptance by subject populations compared to the feasible alternatives.  The ‘preservers’, ‘facilitators’ and ‘collaborators’ of colonialism, as Abernethy shows, far outnumbered the ‘resisters’ at least until very late:  ‘Imperial expansion was frequently the result not just of European push but also of indigenous pull’.

The legacy of colonization appears even today – those areas that were colonies of the British Empire are freer and have lower levels of corruption than those that weren’t colonized by Britain.  Why?  Perhaps the colonies offered rule of law versus tribal vengeance.  Perhaps the colonizers offered science, medicine, and education.  Perhaps the liberty of Western Civilization was fascinating.  Me?  I’m betting that it was mail-order catalogs that were filled with pictures of lacey undergarments, or maybe the taxation system.

no

We’ll apologize for colonies after they give up the Internet.

But the relics of de-colonization were also pretty clear.  This is one additional case Gilley makes.  In Gunea-Bissau, 25,000 people were killed as colonialism ended.  150,000 were displaced – all from a starting population of only 600,000.  Thankfully, Marxists took over and turned it into a worker’s paradise, dropping rice production from 182,000 tons per year to 80,000 tons per year.  No more tedious time spending cooking and eating!  That Marxist diet plan always works, and thankfully the government feels so much love for their people that they provide a secret police, too!  Gilley notes that at least half of the nations that de-colonized during the twentieth century had similar success at eliminating pesky excess food supply and pesky excess population.

victoria

I don’t think that colonization was all party and no hangover.  There are plenty of descriptions of older colonial atrocities, especially when you go back to the 1700’s or 1800’s – the Belgian Congo under King Leopold was one very notable horror show so that the Belgium government took it away from him in 1908 prior to giving the Congo full independence in 1960, yet, today (from no less than The Daily Beast):

Wembore calls life under Belgians “très bon,” despite the segregation, and many of Stanleyville’s residents agree. “I look at the river, I used to see speedboats; now I see wooden boats,” he says, gesturing to the long, roughly carved canoes on the Congo River filled with traders. “This is poverty.”

So Gilley has confirmation from at least some Congolese that being colonized wasn’t all bad.

That doesn’t stop his University from “investigating” him.  You can read about it in this article, but it doesn’t say much (LINK).  Since he still has a web page up, and is still publishing papers that specifically poke the finger in the eye of academia (like this one on how Yemen did much better as a colony (LINK) and this one about how non-leftists are treated in academia (LINK)), I think he probably came out okay.

The question of colonialism remains.  I tend to think that colonization can help a nation, especially if it brings about the systems that allow for efficient administration of a free country and gives the people faith that those systems can work.  None of this happens in a short period of time, and it’s susceptible to corruption and tribalism.  But we simply have to have colonies in the future.  Why?

If we don’t we’ll never get Colonial Marines.

marines

Okay, true fact, Vasquez in Aliens® is John Connor’s™ step-mom in Terminator 2©.

Addendum:  Per the Comments.

newcalifornia

With Personal Seal:

seal

 

A Valentine, Chilean Beer, and This One Crazy Trick to Cure Socialism

“He’s the new regional sales manager, my immediate boss, and a tyrant.  They call him the Little Pinochet.” – Psych

genz

Ahhh, Valentine’s Day!  You can feel the romance in the air, along with the communists.

I got off the airplane at the international airport in Chile, in Santiago.  The airport was beautiful, clean.  The view of Aconcagua, the tallest mountain outside of Asia, had been magnificent as we flew into the dawn.  When I had recently flown into Mexico City, there was a bewildering list of things NOT to do to avoid being kidnapped or killed, especially in taxi selection.  There were also numerous scraggly-bearded 18 year olds in camo uniforms on numerous corners.  “To make tourists feel good,” I was told.

In Chile?  None of that.  It appeared that the biggest danger was getting a hickey:  as we drove along the beautiful broad avenues I was struck by the sheer number of adults making out on park benches on that warm November afternoon.

Yeah.  People were getting busy, very busy.  Dozens and dozens of them.  In pairs, not like a clump of people making out.  This isn’t Weinstein’s house.  I tried, in my broken high-school-grade Spanish to ask about them.  The cab driver shrugged.  “It is a wonderful warm day.  People are happy.”  Or maybe it was “Aliens are invading and wish to floss your belly after they cover you with strudel.”  Seriously, my Spanish is that bad.

Throughout my trip, my impression was that Chile was beautiful.  Free.  Growing.  The restaurants were filled with music and laughter and fantastic food at reasonable prices.  As I got to work (this was a business trip) I went through the records of the company.  They brought in lunch – sandwiches and a great local beer called Cristal™.  The manager I had been talking with was fluent in English.  Our lunch conversation moved away from business to what Chile was like as a country.

shirt

Okay, the manager I was working with didn’t look like that.  His bikini was green.

The Internet specifically said that you should NOT bring up Augusto Pinochet as a topic.  In fact, this joke (I would cite where I found it, but it’s been years) was used as an example:

An American tourist was visiting Chile.  He asked his host, “What do you think of Pinochet?”  The host immediately blindfolded the tourist, and threw him in the back of a car.  They drove for hours.  Then the tourist was placed in a boat, and he could hear the oars of the rowboat furiously paddling.  The host pulled his blindfold off.  They were in the middle of a lake, it was in the middle of the night.  The host leaned toward the American and whispered:

“I like him.”

So, back to lunch.  I decided to ask the unaskable question.  There was a short pause.  The manager said, skipping the blindfold, the car, and the boat:  “He did what he had to do.  He saved our country.”  He didn’t look angry, he didn’t look upset at the question, heck, he even offered me another beer.

cooler

A communist told me that Pinochet made this girl so poor she has to ride a bike.

In 1970, Salvador Allende was elected with 36.2% of the vote on a socialist platform of free stuff for everyone.  By decree, he began dismantling the economy through nationalization.  In an additional stroke of genius, they “just paid for things” out of new money that they printed.  Inflation?  Nah, the wage and price controls were supposed to prevent that, so that inflation must be your imagination.  Even Wikipedia indicates that Allende was accused of a wide variety of crimes that your average Yale© Socialist™ would love to have on a job application:

  • Rule by decree, you know, Allende had a pen and a phone.
  • Ignoring pesky judicial decisions.
  • Taking over the media or silencing those that opposed him.
  • Supporting illegal takeovers of farms.
  • Not letting people leave the country.

In 1973, Allende was deposed in a coup, which probably saved the country from a civil war.  Although Allende had been offered safe conduct out, he chose to commit suicide using an AK-47 that Fidel Castro gave him.  I’m pretty sure the Communist Dictator’s Etiquette Book says this is bad luck, but Fidel was a rebel who liked to break the rules.  He even executed political prisoners after Labor Day, a big no-no.

Installed in Salvador’s place was General Augusto Pinochet.  Pinochet revitalized the Chilean economy, and in the 17 years of his rule actually increased freedom over time.  In 1990 when the people voted that he shouldn’t continue as president, he stepped down.  This is slightly different than the communist leader’s model for leaving power:  death.

As far as I could find, most of the people killed for political reasons in Chile were killed soon after the coup – the total of killed and “disappeared” people was a little over 3,000 according to most sources.  I’d imagine that most of those killed were hardcore communists, including nearly 1,000 Marxist guerillas.  I’d even bet that most were Soviet sponsored.  And the helicopter rides?  Probably only 120 or so, which would have been a really slow day for Stalin or Mao.

marxist

This meme is in error, as this is clearly a Marxist chimp.  (Unless it identifies as a gorilla.) 

Do I condone the killings?  No.  But when you look at the outcome, compare Chile 17 years after Pinochet took power (when he voluntarily stepped down after an election) and Venezuela 17 years after Chavez.  Chile produced the strongest economy in South America during that time frame, even called a “miracle.”  Venezuela’s economy lagged behind South America’s, even as the world saw record high crude oil prices, which comprise 95%+ of Venezuela’s exports.  And the number of deaths caused by Venezuelan communists?  Well, the media doesn’t count them since communists mean well.  But the murder rate is through the roof in Venezuela, and 30%+ of the children experienced stunted growth due to malnutrition.  That’s okay – only 280,000 kids are at risk of starving to death, and that was estimated in 2017 when things were far better than they are today.  This communism thing has no downside.

To put it starkly:  Allende would have killed and/or starved 100-1000 times as many, had he been given time to implement his plan.

mir

Wow.  That’s a whole bunch of prosperity you should ignore because it didn’t come from a leftist government.

The following quote is from Robert A. Heinlein’s novel, Starship Troopers. How good is this book?  So good that it was criticized noting its “unashamedly Earth-chauvinist nature.”  I assume the critic was a bug-man from the planet Klendathu, but to my eyes, that reads as praise.  I actually prefer to read books where people are the good guys, primarily because I are a people.  If only they had made a movie out of it . . . .

Regardless, a large part of the book is political philosophy, and here’s an example that speaks to our subject matter today:

“Back to these young criminals.  They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes.  The usual sentence was:  for a first offence, a warning, a scolding, often without trial.  After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation.  A boy might be arrested may times and convicted several times before he was punished — and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits.  If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation — ‘paroled’ in the jargon of the times.

“This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements.  Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called ‘juvenile delinquent’ becomes an adult criminal — and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder.”

He had singled me out again.  “Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house … and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken — whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. Comment, please?”

“Why … that’s the craziest way to raise a dog I ever heard of!”

“I agree.  Or a child. Whose fault would it be?”

“Uh … why, mine, I guess.”

“Again I agree.  But I’m not guessing.”

starship

I just wish the artist hadn’t been so subtle with the cover.  Again, too bad they never made a movie of this great book.

In life, being nice when being mean is required is a death sentence.  The band Rush even refers to it in an apt phrase in one of their songs – “kindness that can kill.”  I could get topical with news out of today’s paper about a group of politicians selling just that poison, that kindness that can kill.  It seems to get lots of votes.  Even Chavez got quite a few votes despite Venezuela lagging behind the rest of Latin America in growth because he destroyed the ability of his country to create wealth.  How?  Through firing everyone who knew anything about oil and then refusing to invest to replace the worn out parts that produced the crude oil.

The siren call of “free stuff” kept pulling people back.

socialism

Sadly true.  Hat tip to Aesop at the Raconteur Report (LINK), he originally snagged it from Bayou Renaissance Man (LINK).

Every day the news illustrates the left moving farther left in the United States.  Open calls for socialism or blatantly socialist proposals are nearly a weekly event.  Although I’d prefer to avoid the fate of either a Chavez or a Pinochet, I know which one I’d pick, since it doesn’t require a war that will tear the country apart just to be free.

Oh, wait, did someone mention free stuff?  Never mind.  I’m sure socialism will work this time.

communistdiet

Want Dystopia?  Because this is how you get Dystopia.

“Then who is vice president, Jerry Lewis?” – Back to the Future

calhounmice

John B. Calhoun.  Not C.  B.

It’s rare when a real-life series of experiments showing a possible dystopian future for humanity captures the popular imagination.  It’s rarer still when it becomes the basis for a Newbery© award-winning book for children.  To get to the full trifecta of weird?  That novel was the basis for an animated movie that has a 96% “Fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes®.

The experiment was John B. Calhoun’s Universe series which he did primarily for the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which we’ll cover in much more detail below.  The book is Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.  The movie?  The animated 1982 flick The Secret of NIMH.

nimh

Sure, you can turn a science experiment into a children’s movie, but try to go the other way JUST ONCE and you’ve committed Crimes Against Humanity.  Again.  Stupid International Criminal Court.

Yeah, it’s weird.  The only way it could get weirder is if Dr. John B. Calhoun had been visited during his rodent experiments by a time travelling Vice President John C. Calhoun to warn him about the impending Civil War . . . in 1865.  But from now on in this post, anytime the name Calhoun is used, it’s in reference to the scientist.  If I want to refer to Andrew Jackson’s Vice President?  We’ll just call him “Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Eyes.”

doccalhoun

The hair says psycho, but the eyes also say psycho.  Oh, wait, this is Vice President John C. Calhoun Psycho Ex-Girlfriend Eyes.

It’s strange when a scientist has less extreme hair than a Vice President, but not every scientist can be Doc Brown.  But Doc Calhoun didn’t invent time travel – he studied mice and rats.  What he set up was an artificial environment where there was no pressure to find food or water, and plenty of room for thousands of rodents.  In one experiment, Universe 25, Calhoun estimated that there was plenty of room for 3,840 mice to nest and live.  Imagine how many Pizza Rolls® you could make out of that 3,840 mice!

Calhoun created this mice paradise, and tossed in four lady-mice and four bro-mice.  They quickly paired off and started breeding.  After the first batch of mice-babies hatched from the mouse eggs, the population doubled every 55 days.  At day 315, the rate of growth dropped – the population “only” doubled every 145 days, and at day 315, things started to get . . . strange.

docbrown

Spoiler Alert!  He dies in 1850 as Secretary of State.

Dominant male mice had previously protected their harem of mice-ladies.  But when there were 600 mice?  It became difficult.  The mice-ladies had to fend for themselves.  The female mice became aggressive in self-defense.  They became solitary, and lashed out at their own young, often injuring them.  It was as if the higher population density was somehow more difficult to cope with without a male protecting them.

As the social structure dissolved, it led to violent, aimless females who didn’t know how to raise their young.  The male mice (that weren’t dominant) at this point became passive, and wouldn’t defend themselves when attacked.  Females that were outcasts and not reproducing just hid as far away from the main population as possible.  The outcast females would have gotten themselves a dozen cats and endless chardonnay, but, you know, they were mice.

d2

Calhoun was known to the mice as Godzilla®.

Wikipedia describes what happened next in the following chilling phrase.  “The last surviving birth was on day 600 . . . .”  Rather than the 3840 mice Calhoun calculated could cohabitate in the Universe, the maximum population hit 2200 at day 600.

“The last surviving birth . . . .”

After in an earlier Universe experiment at this stage, Calhoun observed that the (non-dominant) male rodents split into three groups, which he attributed to them being forced out of the nest while still young:

  • Group 1 – Pansexuals – These would mate with anything at any age at any time.
  • Group 2 – The Beautiful Ones – These mice were fat, sleek, healthy, but wouldn’t interact, and were ignored. Since they didn’t fight, they weren’t scared.  Like Justin Bieber, they spent most of their time just grooming themselves.
  • Group 3 – Again, this group was pansexual, but they were violent, and would mate at all costs with anything, and would cannibalize the corpses of the young, even though there was plentiful food. I had been unaware that rodents had their own Congress.

But the end state was always the same:  an entire generation rejected by mothers, unable to exhibit normal behavior, ceased to reproduce.  Those few offspring that were born in this phase of the experiment were born to mothers that ceased to have maternal instincts.

Dr. Calhoun published his findings in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1973.  He had a catchy, upbeat title for his article:  Death Squared.  I think that it would be fair to say that he was creeped out by what he found during his experiments.  It’s not usual for a physician and scientist to quote that cheeriest of all Bible books, Revelation, but Calhoun did so multiple times in the article.

Thankfully, people aren’t mice, right?  Here’s a snippet from Death Squared containing Dr. Calhoun’s conclusions:

For an animal so complex as man, there is no logical reason why a comparable sequence of events should not also lead to a species extinction.  If opportunities for role fulfillment fall far short of the demand by those capable of filling roles and having expectations to do so, only violence and disruption of social organization can follow.  Individuals born under these circumstances will be so out of touch with reality as to be incapable even of alienation.  Their most complex behavior will become fragmented.  Acquisition, creation, and utilization of ideas appropriate for life in a post-industrial cultural-conceptual-technological society will have been blocked.  Just as biological generativity in the mouse involves this species’ most complex behaviors, so does ideational generativity for man.  Loss of these respective complex behaviors means death of the species.

“Death of the species” means us, you and me.  And Universe 25 explains in vivid detail the horror of welfare, of plenty devoid of purpose, of societal breakdown brought about by parental neglect.  I wonder if there’s a graph that shows that welfare is horrible and leads to Universe 25, but with people?  There is:

d3

Amazing how we conduct an experiment on mice and worry about the ethical consequences, and then do the same thing with people just to get re-elected.  Thankfully, Universe 25 showed that Brave Single Mothers® are just as good as an intact family.  Oh, it showed the opposite?  Never mind.

Why does Jihadi John® leave London to go fight with ISIS™?  Because free food, poor upbringing, and crowded conditions without fathers and with abusive mothers don’t make good men; those conditions make monsters.  Men want to be tested.  They want challenges.  They want purpose, and if they can’t find a good one and have no moral backing, they’ll make a bad one.  Cheetos® and Red Bull© and X-Box™ or blood and steel and difficulty?

Blood and steel and difficulty.  It will win every time.

We have to have purpose, and mothers to nurture us, and fathers to teach us what is right and what is wrong.  And the city is maybe not the best place to live, unless you enjoy alienation.  And the extinction of humanity.

Or maybe we could just get some Ruffles™ instead of the Cheetos®.  I’m sure that will solve the problem, and we can just go get that at the store.

Photo of John B. Calhoun By Cat Calhoun – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia.

The Cold War . . . A Victory?

“My name is Drago. I’m a fighter from the Soviet Union. I fight all my life and I never lose. soon I fight Rocky Balboa, and the world will see his defeat. Soon, the whole world will know my name.” – Rocky IV

sovietcat

Result of Soviet experiment to mix Lenin with a cat.

It was an autumn night.  I was driving back to college after a weekend visit home.  My car sped uphill as fast as it could – my foot pushed the gas pedal until it was flush with the floor and all 1800cc’s of General Motors® engine that I owned was working at peak capacity.  The steep grade kept my car from going much over 70 mph, but that was breaking the law all the same.  Thankfully, there was no place for a cop to hide, and if one did by chance catch my speed on the radar, he’d be more likely to congratulate me on being able to go that fast up the hill than give me a ticket.

The trees slid by, growing straight up even though the slope they grew on was steeply slanted.  I looked up at the starry sky through the driver’s side window.  The stars were everywhere.  The cold, dry mountain air and utter lack of light pollution and haze made the night sky here confusing – how can you see a constellation when the sky is so filled with stars that no pattern can be found?  The mountain pass also took me into a radio dead zone – not a single channel, AM or FM was available.

On a Sunday night, there was no other traffic.  My headlights were the only lights within twenty miles – not even a lonely mountain cabin.  And that’s when I noticed the glow from the north.  A deep red glow, one like I’d never seen before spanned the entire northern horizon.

fidget

“Did they finally blow it all up?”  I quickly hit the radio button to scan stations.  The orange LED numbers sped endlessly by without finding a channel to fix on.  I switched to AM.  Again, spinning numbers, repeating back at the beginning.  No signals.  I pulled over at a wide spot in the road meant for truckers to put chains on when the pass was snow packed and icy.  I got out and closed the door behind me.

The night was still, the only sound the pinging of contracting metal as the engine cooled.  And the only light, outside of the stars, was that red glow from the north.  I knew a major military installation was on the other side of that hill, maybe 75 miles to the north.  One that would certainly be on the list for missiles coming over the pole if the Russians decided that it was time to play.  Was this what a nuclear glow looked like?

For the next fifteen minutes I drove on, the radio searching in vain for a station.  As quickly as I left the pass, the radio hit and grabbed a station.  Nothing strange, nothing unusual – “the hits keep coming!”   I breathed a sigh of relief and settled on the rock station.  AC/DC©.  Thunderstruck.  That would work.  The lights of the next town appeared as I followed the road.  The next morning I read in the paper – “Northern Lights Visible Over Half the United States.”

raindance

Maybe one day communism will work . . . though rain dances have a better record.

Looking back, there is a tendency to think the Cold War was a farce, a fake war that the United States was destined to win since we were fighting against a bunch of fat vodka-swilling goofs in fur hats.  That wasn’t what we felt at the time, as it seemed that the Soviets went from victory to victory, and communism kept spreading.  We knew that we were caught up in a clash between economic systems, one that could change from taking turns feeding rifles and grenades to various flavors of rebels in countries that no one really cared about to full mobilization and launch of nuclear weapons faster than the Dominos® thirty minute delivery guarantee.

In addition to being a clash of ideology, the Cold War was also a clash of economic systems.  Freedom was given a chance, not because of its efficiency and all of the awesome blue jeans, but because the war planners thought it would produce more.  Even as free markets “wasted” money on consumer pursuits, they also gave people incentives to create more.  The economy of the United States was an open book, and it was mainly flourishing, having survived both double digit interest rates and Barry Manilow.

pros

The Soviet Union, however, didn’t share information with the world on its economy, except good news about Soviet technical triumphs.  From the outside, the Soviet Union looked strong – exceptional world athletes at the Olympics, technical triumphs like the first satellite and the first man in orbit made the Soviets seem a technical machine that would destroy the West.  There was the idea that the Soviets were ahead of us, technically, even though the first pocket calculator they produced was based on a Texas Instruments® calculator that they bought, gutted, and presented as their own.

Their fighter jets were, however, real.  And very good.  If their missiles weren’t accurate, they had thousands of them.

But what we didn’t see from the West was, despite the technical achievements and strong military, the Soviet Union was rotting inside.  What caused the rot?  You could argue corruption, you could argue a lot of things, but when it comes down to the true root cause, it’s simple.  The Soviet system did not encourage individuals to greatness.  It relied on central planning – the equivalent of having Congress describe what the economy should make, down to the smallest details.  The Soviet Union collapsed.  Slowly.  Unlike the economies of the West, it couldn’t grow fast enough to fund a response to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more commonly known as Star Wars.

And that was it.  SDI was one more thing than the Soviets could cope with.  The Soviet system collapsed like systems do – first at the edges in Eastern Europe, then finally at the core in Moscow.  This slow collapse played out over more than a decade, and only really started with the Berlin wall coming down.

The biggest part of the Soviet Union ending was the most likely threat of the world ending all at once.  With that ending, the West was cut adrift – it ceased to have an opponent in any real fashion.  Without its opponent, in Solzhenitsyn’s speech to Harvard® (LINK), what the West really lost became evident.   There’s a lot to this speech, more than one post or even two or three.  I’ll probably revisit it again in time.

“. . . in early democracies, as in the American democracy at the time of its birth, all individual human rights were granted because man is God’s creature.  That is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility.  Such was the heritage of the preceding thousand years.  Two hundred or even fifty years ago, it would have seemed quite impossible, in America, that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts or whims.  Subsequently, however, all such limitations were discarded everywhere in the West; a total liberation occurred from the moral heritage of Christian centuries with their great reserves of mercy and sacrifice.”

In our struggle with and defeat of our Soviet enemy we’ve lost two things.  We’ve lost who we are as a people.  A generation ago it was clear to every American that your mere presence in America didn’t make you an American – much more was required.  Now our division multiplies and it becomes apparent how “satisfaction of instincts or whims” has shattered us.

sovietcomp

We’ve also lost any sense of purpose, a national goal worth achieving.  It’s not that there’s not a lot to be done – there are plenty of goals left that are worthy of humanity to accomplish:  interplanetary flight, immortality, understanding physics.  But right now we can’t agree on anything.

In the end, if we can’t solve this, we’ll fragment.  Thankfully, that will give us a whole new batch of enemies . . . .

Maps, the Secret of Weight Loss, and the Source of Coke Syrup

“Maps, my dear, are the undergarments of a country!  They give shape…to continents.” – The Englishmen Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain

sovietmappin

I call this the Cruel Map.

Excellence requires consistency.  Consistency does not imply excellence – a visit to any McDonalds® will prove that.  But consistency is required for excellence.

And excellence is required for health.

The human body is an incredibly complex device, even when you ignore the brain like most television executives involved in programming selection do.  The human body is robust.  The only way that humanity can create something as wondrous as a human is to make a baby, which is generally pretty fun to attempt, even if you don’t succeed.  About as close as we have gotten to a really complex machine that approaches human complexity is the toaster.  Bread in – toast out.  Works every time, but I still can’t figure out where the bread went.  Maybe the bread powers the toaster?

warrentoast

Humanity’s most complicated machines can’t even come close to the versatility that is a human:  if your car were able to fuel itself like a person, you’d be able to feed it gasoline or junk mail or plastic bags and it would turn that into a trip to Cleveland leaving only carbon dioxide and water vapor exhaust gas, and some form of car-poop that you presumably would compost so you could grow more car food.  Oh, and the car would self-repair for decades – your tires would grow back in the middle of the night.  Unfortunately your car would try to pick up on other cars, and might identify as a truck, but that’s a longer story.

The human body is excellently designed, and very, very consistent in its response to inputs.  But the owner’s manual sucks, and many times we don’t operate it properly or fuel it very well.  Case in point – achieving excellent health requires measurement.  Of what?  Unless you’re an adolescent reading this, you’re not getting taller.  What parameter might be changing that you could measure, say, every day?  Besides armpit hair length.  That’s too obvious, and everyone does that, anyway.  Think harder.

Oh, yes!  Weight!

There is a discipline in measuring, especially when you ate a cake and don’t want to see what the scale says that those extra calories did to your weight.  This is no small problem – 74% of Americans were overweight in 2007, and there has been plenty of time since then for more Nachos Bellgrande®, Cheeze Whiz® and Twinkies™ since then while watching videos from Blockbuster®.  I was reading an article about it a few months back, and one doctor noted that a “big” patient used to be ~220 pounds early in his career, but now they have to buy equipment that can handle people exceeding 400 pounds in weight.

romefini

Fun Fact:  The number of Blockbuster® video stores in the Roman Empire (117A.D.) is off by one when compared to the number of Blockbuster™ video stores in the United States today.

Unexpectedly (at least I wasn’t expecting it), heart disease has gone down as weight has gone up (Smoking, Orphans, and the French) but a whole host of other medical problems seem to plague our newly-larger Americans.  I won’t go into the details, you’re aware and you’ve read ‘em all.

But excellence in health is tied (at some level) to excellence in measurement.  Thankfully, there’s a $20 item that can provide excellent measurement:  a scale.  Oh, sure, counting calories might be your default position, but that simply won’t work.  To gain a pound a month, you have to eat an excess 3600 calories during that month.  How much extra, on a daily basis, is that?  2.7 Oreo® cookies.  Each day.  It’s 9.6 ounces of Coke® (a can is 12 ounces, or 4,530 liters in communist units).  On the average American diet of 3,600 calories per day, it’s less than 3% of you your total daily calories.

scaleweight

Okay, maybe the metric system has one use.  One.

No one measures calories in that closely, at least not for long.  So, a pound.  That’s not so bad.

No, I said a pound a month.

If you went to college and graduated in four years, that would be 48 pounds.  All from less than 10 ounces of Coke™ a day.  Measuring the input is futile unless you live in a bubble and measure everything you eat, all day.  That’s why everyone is fat – the wonderful machine we own is adapted to live in a world where food is alternately scarce and plentiful – a world without refrigerators.  A world where Sonic® bacon cheeseburgers are available until 11pm (Midnight on Friday and Saturday!) and an extra 74 ounces of Sprite® are available for only $0.25 wasn’t really planned for when your pancreas was designed.  If the pancreas had a staff, they would be very, very tired from all of the soda.

“Oh, hell.  More soda coming in.  Insulin production to maximum.  Again.  And someone call storage and tell ‘em we’ve got to get fat production moving.  It’s overtime tonight for sure, boys.  And someone call the liver and wake it up.  He may be hungover still, but it’s time to get to work.  This fat won’t make itself.”

I drink about a soda a year, so that’s not a problem my pancreas has.  The Boy, who is 18, burns approximately 100,000 calories per day between sports and whatever it is he does in the basement that makes him all sweaty, and he drinks soda by the liter.  A liter is a Canadian gallon, I believe, but it is less expensive in the 2-liter bottle because things that are measured in metric are just not as good so you can’t charge as much as a non-metric premium product which would be sold in pints or quarts or ounces.  I think Coke™ is actually made by Pakistani slave children who are forced to milk genetically engineered badgers for the Coke© syrup.  Or at least that’s what I read on Wikipedia®, or maybe on Huffington Post© or CNN™.  So it’s certain that it’s true.

But while The Boy can consume endless calories, I can’t even think about having a Chick-Fil-A™ sandwich without buying larger pants and immediately expanding to the size of the British Empire in 1910.

bigemp

Does this Empire make my butt look big?   

Okay, if measuring the inputs doesn’t work, how do you manage to eat and manage to be smaller than the USSR?  You have to measure the output.  Ruthlessly.  And don’t gain that first pound.  If you do?  Get rid of it.  That day.  Or that week.  But don’t wait.  And you can’t lose more than one pound at a time.  And you know how to lose a pound.  It may not be easy.  It may not be quick.  But you know how to do this.

soviet

This map shows the USSR and communist bloc countries at their greatest extent.  Also pictured:  all of the happy Soviet citizens.

You can afford to compromise – outward, on those things that aren’t intrinsic to you.  But if you want to have excellence in anything, you can never compromise inward on the things that are important to you.  You have to have a line.  And health should always be important to you, unless you’re Johnny Depp.  If you’re Johnny Depp – you already know that death will be no obstacle to your lifestyle.

Health determines what the quality of your life is really like.  And I’ve got some new goals.

The Boy will be out of the house in August, and off to the next stage of his adventure in life.  But that leaves Pugsley as the only chick in the nest.  Pugsley needs a sparring partner to practice with so he can defeat the hordes of Orcs™ that will be unleashed when the monetary system is abducted by Sauron® and Frodo© is unable to stop inflation by throwing Ruth Bader Ginsborg into Mount Doom®.  My goal?  To be in sparring shape and size by August.

There is no shortcut.  But I have a map.

I’ll let you know how it goes . . .

Soviet Map via:  User:MaGioZal [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0), GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons