Blog Archive

Friday, October 13, 2017

American Obesity Reaches Record High:

Two months ago I wrote a post, 'O Tempora, O Mores' deploring the virtue of the common man in this country.  Everything was at a new nadir.  We were awful in so many ways it was hard to keep track of them all.

What's funny is that the dire pessimistic tone of the post actually understated all the problems, and in the past few months we've gotten more recent data that shows everything is already far worse than even that.

Some updates on how the situation is worse than the hell already described in my post two months ago --  drug overdoses are at a new record high, STD's are far more common than I suspected.  Despite there being an HPV vaccine, 80% of adults have been infected with HPV at some point in their lives.  2/3 have HSV-1.  So the 1/3 of Americans have STD's data point is accurate, when you're talking about the more major diseases like Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, AIDS, Herpes, and Hepatitis.  STD's just reached a new record high in infection rates in this country when referring to these more damaging STD's, but it's still around 1/3.  But if you just want to know "are Americans sluts or not?", any STD is proof, and so the 80% statistic is the more relevant one when discussing American morality.

If Americans have HPV 80% of the time, HSV-1 66% of the time, and something more major 33% of the time, that's not going to totally overlap, which means probably 90+% of Americans have an STD of some sort, all of which is impossible to catch without being a slut.

Younger couples are more likely to have cheated on each other than older couples, so the effective adultery rate (ie for anyone trying to make their way in the world today) is really 50%, not 33% like the previous article said.  The most dramatic increase in adultery comes from the woman's side, who in younger couples is just as likely to cheat as the male, despite the fact that the damage from a woman cheating is much more severe than when a male cheats.  (No matter what, a woman is raising her own child, but if men are cuckolded their gene line is straight out extinguished.  On top of that, it's possible for men to love multiple women but women can only love the very best man in their life, so cheating for a woman means a complete alienation of her affection, whereas for a man the wife might not even notice any drop in affection at all.  This is because men are naturally polygamous whereas women are naturally hypergamous, which in turn is due to the simple biological reality that men produce way more sperm per month than women produce eggs.)

This is why female adultery has always been much more fiercely policed than male adultery historically.  It's because it has always been a much more calamitous event in people's lives, and has a far worse impact on the well being of society and civilization as a whole.  When you drop any penalty for female adultery, they end up cheating just as often as men, but their cheating is ten times as bad as ours ever was, for a total 'nation wrecking factor' of the situation being maybe 30 time worse than where we were in 1950. (because the quantity of cheating as well as the quality was on the rise from then to now.)

The best argument for cracking down hard on male adultery is it gives women a sense of fairness which might inspire them to live up to their side of the bargain.  I'm fine with executing anyone caught cheating, male or women, if this is what it takes to keep women from cheating.  But when assessing how fallen and depraved we've become, a woman cheating is about as bottom of the barrel as a woman can go, whereas for men it's merely gauche.  If all men cheated and zero women did, we'd be living in paradise.  If all women cheated and zero men did, we'd be living in hell.

Another disturbing statistic I've mentioned before is even worse than I thought.  I said that 'half of women are bisexual these days,' well, it's actually 60%:

http://www.yourtango.com/2011104439/study-average-woman-bisexual

That's the percentage of women who say they are sexually attracted to other women, are 'bi-curious,' have kissed a girl, etc.  I have a feeling that that number will continue to rise as society continuously embraces more LBGT pride parades and movements and elementary school indoctrinations, to the point that probably next generation it'll be 80% or 90% of women report being bi.

Now, I don't blame women for their feelings of attraction.  Anyone in their right mind can see that women's curvy bodies, body hairless bodies, fair-skinned, big-eyed, long and voluminous hair on top of their heads, with delicate hands and feet and shoulders and jaws, thin narrow necks, bones that create all sorts of beautiful dips and valleys pushing right through to their skin, S-curved backs and flexible postures no men can emulate, fluting voices, blushing cheeks and elegantly concealed internal genitalia have a lot more going for them than anything men can provide.  But I do blame a culture that perversely increases the likelihood of straight couples not forming, which is a threat to the continuation of the species.

If women provide for themselves financially (or receive funds free from the taxpayer), and are more attracted to women than men when all else is equal, what reason is there left for nuclear families to form?  And even if you say women will do just fine on their own with lesbian pairings and artificial insemination, not only do the statistics not actually bear this theory out (lesbians and their children score worse on virtually every social welfare measurement than their straight peers), but even assuming it were true where does that leave men?

Unlike women who are naturally attracted to other women, it is very unnatural for a man to be attracted to another man.  It will never become a viable option for the vast majority, 90+% of men who, like women, are sane enough to understand that female beauty is peerless and unrivaled.  And if they can't have sex with a woman, and thus have a wife and kids, you've shut them out of the most rewarding aspects of life.

And a bunch of men who have passionate instinctive desires for everything good in life but are realistically shut out from achieving any of them from birth onwards, no matter how hard they work or how much they play by the rules, will either kill themselves in despair, become NEET's who contribute nothing to your society because they get nothing out of it so why should they even bother?, or engage in full scale violent revolution, which I assure you the 80 or 90% lesbian couples in their sapphic new world would not much enjoy.

Rather than artificially boosting an already volatile situation, like prodding a dragon awake or setting off a supervolcano, wouldn't it be better to discourage women from seeking out lesbian partners?  Wouldn't it be better to firmly insist that they pair off with men -- so long as men exist in this world?  We're not just talking about consigning half the population to eternal darkness and misery ('oh, they deserved it for being born men, fuck them'), but a full 100%, because they're not just going to quietly take it and go down alone, and men just so happen to be more effective than women at violence, so saying 'we'll just put down the vermin like dogs when that day comes' doesn't fly either.

Women not only very naturally can fall for other women, they also very naturally conform to societal norms.  They are not confrontational, their low testosterone and evolutionary history of having to placate those who are bigger and stronger than them for millions of years forbids it.  Which means if you tell them they should be proud of their feelings for other women and this makes them special, that's what they'll do.  And if you tell them they should be proper helpmates to the men in their lives and seek satisfaction in how much they please their husbands, they'll also do that.

Women, according to their own polls, were happier before they were liberated in the 1950's.  So I'm not suggesting a raw deal for them here, going back to straight, married, nuclear families.  At worst it's all the same to women what they're conforming to, so long as they're praised for conforming to it.  But men are incomparably better off when there's a woman in their lives.  This is just obvious, but there are also tons of studies I could rattle off showing married men are happier than singles, straights are happier than gays, married men live ten years longer than single men, etc, etc, etc.

A sane society would tamp down on any bisexual leanings in their women and blast up to fever pitch any romantic feelings they might be inclined to with men.  For the sake of civilization and the future, it just has to be this way.  Instead we're doing the exact opposite, shaming women who 'debase themselves' by empowering the patriarchy by marrying a man and praising anyone with the 'courage' to choose another woman.  Like the STD rate or the drug overdose rate, the rate of women who openly embrace their attraction to other women is a sign of social decay, because just like all the others yes it decays society.  And this rate is at least thirty times as high as what it used to be just a single lifetime ago.

Lastly, when I wrote my post two months ago, the latest data said 1/3 of American are obese.  Well, that's out of date too.  We've reached a new record high, and now it's 40%.  Obesity among whites is a trait about equally shared between men and women at 38%.  For blacks and hispanics it's even worse, with the obesity being much more prevalent among their women than their men, well over 50%.

Just like adultery, obesity for women is much worse than obesity for men.  Women's specialization is their beauty, so when they ruin it they ruin practically everything of worth about themselves.  In contrast, obese men like Orson Scott Card or G.R.R. Martin can still be some of the greatest writers in the world.  Since men's specialization is creativity and ingenuity (which we pay for in terms of having much higher retardation and insanity rates on the other end), the size of our bodies can largely be irrelevant.  The other specialization of men is violence, which does require a fit body, but that's largely become obsolete with the onset of drone warfare, etc.

A fat man is disgusting, because it says a lot about his self-discipline and spiritual ascendancy over material lusts.  Also, men are very pretty in abstract if they keep themselves thin, fit, and muscular.  The statue of David by Michelangelo is not that bad.  It's profaning God's intention when you replace that David with a fat slob like Harvey Weinstein and then expect women to want to stay straight and have sex with them.  Shouldn't we at least meet women halfway by looking as good as we possibly can on our side?

But a fat woman is beyond disgusting.  It's inexcusable, irreparable, and irredeemable.  Not only did this woman just waste the one asset she has in life for a hamburger, she has shown how ill disciplined and low IQ she is for having made that decision, which means those same bad traits will carry over to every other aspect of your lives together should you get into a relationship with them.  Good luck not divorcing, not being cheated on, not dealing with mental illness, and having fit and attractive and intelligent and well-behaved kids with that slug.  It's like a full spectrum, full decibel London blitz air raid siren is flashing and wailing right in front of your face -- "AVOID! AVOID!  DANGER! DANGER! PULL UP! PULL UP!" the moment a man sees or crosses paths with a fat woman.

It's a true insult to God, who created the most beautiful thing in the universe, the female body (objectively speaking too, even women think women are more beautiful than men, this is just straight true, not even a question of hormones and evolutionary selection), to profane and desecrate that temple into yet another Jabba the Hut.  Gone all the bones poking out from the skin like mountain ranges, collarbones, spines, shoulder blades, hip lines, ankles and heels and all the rest.  All to be replaced by homogeneous blubber.  Gone the striking contrast of full bosom, waspish waist, and then flaring hips.  It's just all homogeneous cylindrical blubber from top to bottom.  The stomach projects further out than the breasts.  Gone the mesmerizing complex and diverse shapes of the two breasts, constantly metamorphosing before our eyes with every little lean, change of posture, or brush against another object.  Neither a tear drop nor a sphere nor anything else definable, the twin mixtures of solid and fluid, rising and falling with every breath much less every step, every angle presenting a new and different aspect of beauty (side boob, underboob, plunging neckline, regular flesh morphing into aureola into nipple, and the wondrous cleavage that marks the two breasts' ever-changing union and yet disunion from one another; like how holes can sometimes be as real as and perform just like particles sometimes the space between breasts can be more beautiful than the breasts themselves) just turns into flaps of blubber layered on top of yet more flaps of blubber into one blubberous whole.

An attractive woman can be looked at for hours at a time with ever more discoveries to her charms, because that's just how complexly beautiful every part of her body is, as well as the unified whole when looked at all together.  When you combine voice, mannerisms, posture, motion, fashion sense, hairstyle, and facial expressions, her beauty can just compound and compound into infinity, into the realm of the divine.  And obesity ruins all of that.  It's just all out the window before it even started.  There's nothing left to see but disgusting blubber, from sea to shining sea.  There are no thick mysterious thighs leading under a skirt, with a thin narrow waist and a belly that sinks inwards compared to the ribcage, spiderwebbed by hip bones almost poking out of the skin, no complex interplay of bone and flesh taking the ascendancy back and forth like some sort of Buddhist sand art -- there's just blubber.  Blubber everywhere, taking up every last fold and crevice.  It's like serving rice on top of rice on top of rice and calling it lasagna.

If a genius poet or artist took a gun to their heads and in a fit of madness blew out half their brains, becoming permanently bed-ridden and losing all of their talent as a result, surely these men would be blamed and cursed for the wastage of their God given gifts.  Many a talented man has gone through exactly that fate, driven by their inner demons to madness and destruction, and every time it's a horrible shame.  Virgil tried to burn his own Aeneid, just as Gogol attempted with Dead Souls.  Van Gogh cut off his own ear.  Newton refused to write down Principia and let the world know of his insights until prompting and pleas by his friends finally moved him to action.

But can any of these men claim to have laid waste to anything so beautiful or glorious as the female body?

Just think about that for a second.  Men strive all their lives just to draw Venus like Botticelli, or create a statue of Nike, or so on.  Women are born Botticellis.  Each and every one of them has the capacity to create a work of art surpassing the world's finest, by simply sculpting themselves.  And these women, given the greatest birthright and largest inheritance God could possibly hope to award a man, throw it all away in favor of an extra hamburger.  Billions of them.  This isn't on the scale of Nietzsche's madness or the stupid Roman centurion who murdered Archimedes or the Greeks who told Socrates to take poison anymore.  For every one man whose nobility was treated like dirt and wasted on mankind, you have billions of obese women doing the exact same thing to themselves every day.

Even an adulterous lesbian with herpes can still be beautiful and thus serve some purpose in this world, provide some good to the people around her.  But an obese woman is lower than that.  She's repellent, abhorrent, and good for absolutely nothing.  The divine light that was gifted to her at birth, that even the worst of vipers still carries with her so long as a woman stays thin, is snuffed out entirely, replaced only by sub-sentient rolling land whales.

So yes, obesity is a crisis for both sexes, and if it encourages women to stay thin, I would have no problem mandating men stay equally thin.  But the gravity of the disorder is far worse for women, and yet nothing more is being done to stop it. Everyone is just looking the other way and whistling as over half our population becomes undatable, untouchable, unimpregnable, un-even-lookable.  How is the species even going to survive if women are no longer attractive enough to woo suitors?  Has anyone long-gamed out the implications of this 'freedom'?

For every obese woman there's an overweight woman headed in that direction, so a 40% obesity prevalence is really an 80% undatability prevalence.  So right off the bat 80% of all women are off the market, and 100% of men are left competing for just 20% of the opposite sex.  This is a game of musical chairs that leaves a lot of miserable men behind.  Because women ruined any value they might have, men have no one left to date, no one they can possibly value, and must live single for life as well, through no fault of their own.  How does this make any sense?  What kind of society allows this level of sabotage to occur in the well being of both sexes?  How are we all so blithe to what's going on around us?  Do the words 'record high' or 'for the first time on record' get through to people?

This is the worst state humanity has ever been in, as measured by virtually every indicator of personal and social health.  Not just like, oh, this century has been awful.  I'm saying even this year has accelerated to new levels of terribleness never before seen.  And next year will be beyond anything we imagined this year, and so on.  New statistics come out seemingly every month saying, "you can't even guess how bad it's gotten since last time we measured this!"

At this point it's like we're trying to shoot the moon.  Are we intentionally gathering up vices and follies like hearts so that we can turn everything around and win via the back door?  Is there some secret cheat code that I don't know about?

Because otherwise it doesn't make much sense that the status quo has remained pretty much unperturbed since 1970.  Every decision that led us here was made around then, and all these warning signs are flashing all around us, error, error, error, and yet here we are, unwilling to change a single one of those decisions.  Unless we're playing hearts and this is an ingenious shoot the moon strategy, we're no different from the Dodos who allowed themselves to go extinct without putting up a single fight.

(Of course, there was one group that put up a fight, but we're not allowed to praise them anymore, because boo hoo six million Jews and poor invaded Czechoslovakia.  If only the Nazis had won World War II. . .)

No comments: