Anti-Islamic Terrorism

Two New Zealand mosques have been attacked, reportedly by a single gunman, causing multiple fatalities. While Islamic terror attacks against Europeans are fairly common - although it has been very quiet for a couple years now - the violence is rarely returned. To my recollection, this is the first mass shooting directed towards the immigrants, rather than the other way around. The shooter, now in custody, left a 74-page anti-immigration manifesto on social media, where he states that his quest for vengeance began with the murder of 11-year Ebba Akerlund, who was run down by an Islamic terrorist in Stockholm while shopping with her mom.

A single act by a lone gunman is not a trend, but my gut reaction has to be that this kind of violence was inevitable, and this will not be the last of it. The responsibility for any single shooting lies on the gunman himself, but a trend of reactionary violence - if indeed one develops - lies squarely on the western democracies and their almost total disregard for the nations over which they rule. The people routinely vote against immigration, against wars, against bailouts. Candidates makes promises but the results rarely show. The major idea of democracy is that, rather than having competing factions fight a war for political control, we instead take a head count to decide who would have won, and let them call the shots until the next election. This works so long as the people who win the headcount are normally the same people who would have won the war. If the strongest faction comes to believe that their votes are not actually relevant, eventually they will cozy up to the notion that they might be better off to go ahead and fight that war.

This man seems to have come to the conclusion that he was going to have to take defense of western civilization into his own hands. This blog takes a similar stance, in general, although that hardly amounts to advocating for such indefensible vigilanteism. Opening fire on random civilians - at prayer, no less - is not just savage thuggery, but also happens to be totally counterproductive to his own goals. An isolated incident is only likely to increase Muslim immigration, because it makes martyrs of them, gives the left a rallying cry, and associates anti-immigration sentiments with unhinged violence. My stance on punishment for terrorist crimes against random civilians is that the culprits be publicly tortured and executed. There's no reason I'd spare this criminal the same fate.

Our focus should be on survivalism, not vigilanteism. That means rejecting the materialistic culture in favor of family, and preparing for the collapse scenario. Violence will quite likely be a core component of the defense of our nation, whether we wish it or not. (When/if it comes, we'll wish it hadn't.) That is not the same as seeking it out, or being utterly reckless about it, as was this radical western terrorist. No, he's only given his political enemies a gift, and the response will be quite predictable. The idea that any one of us is going to single-handedly defend western civilization, like Brutus fighting off the Etruscans on the bridge, is maniacally delusional. If violence was to be applied, let's say, his approach was exactly the opposite of the right way to do it. If the goal was to terrorize Muslims into leaving, then it should be done with sustained, low-grade violence, not flash-in-the-pan spectacles which leave the instigators dead or imprisoned for life. If the goal was to rally his countrymen in defense of the homeland, shooting up an innocent crowd at prayer seems like the worst possible idea. And if the goal was to influence the elites and politicians to serve the interests of their own people rather than foreigners, then the violence should be directed at them instead. Liberals are easily intimidated by fear. The major reason they vote for high immigration is they're afraid of being called racist. If they were even more afraid of what nationalists might do to them, the invasions would stop pretty fast.

[Update: evidently the goal was accelerationism. The shooter wants a strong reaction against whites & right wingers, wants to begin balkanization now rather than later. It seems like an outlandish strategy, but it's not so different from the Iraqi insurgents baiting US troops into using excess force against civilians in the hopes of stoking popular revolt against the occupation.]

I don't suspect we'll see any copycat attacks, or a signifiant trend towards this kind of violence in the short term, although I'd expect retaliation from Jihadis. The long-term prognosis is armed ethnic conflict for most of the western countries, but it will concur with pronounced economic crises, those to the level of food and fuel shortages. In the short term, incidents like this only give the left leverage to disarm us, shut down our websites, and otherwise sabotage our efforts to prepare for the ongoing collapse of our civilization.

Civilizations should protect their daughters from being raped to death

The fundamental duty of civilization is to provide reproductive advantage to its people. Tribes arose as an organized way for men to protect & provide for the women and children most closely related to them, improving the success of their lineages. Tribes, and even nation-states, are logical responses to the natural order of things. Civilizations that don't benefit the citizens tend not to last long. The Aztecs murdered a fourth of the children under their domain. The result was an empire so fragile that Cortez and a handful of men were able to play off popular resentments to loot and utterly devastate their entire civilization. The Romans became so overbearing that the rural peasantry began aiding Germanic invaders, who ultimately conquered Rome. This is the fundamental social contract that cannot be violated. Other rules are secondary and might be bent or broken depending on circumstances. But civilizations must improve the reproductive fitness of their people, or perish in favor of a better society.

The western world now seems almost deliberately engineered to violate that fundamental contract, and it's only getting worse. Healthy societies solve problems, and the best ones do so proactively. Basketcase societies not only fail to solve problems, but they exacerbate them with their solutions, while also introducing new ones. Every single progressive policy lowers the fertility of western nations, and - if anything - improves that of foreigners. Every single one. Men are encouraged to have fervently active sex lives with each other, rather than controlling their impulses and directing them towards family building. Boys are chemically castrated by their mothers, to adoring praise by other social media psychopaths. Women have been trained that empowerment means terminating their pregnancies and working for a corporation rather than raising their own children. Those same corporations' advertisements typically depict women in interracial relationships. Climate change is the only problem they want to be highly proactive about, but it's a fake problem, and the solution is that western countries should have fewer children, while diverting resources towards highly polluting nonwestern countries.

That modern society now discourages female fertility, weakens the nuclear family relative to the individual and the state, and redistributes wealth from American families towards immigrants and single mothers, is enough of an outrage in itself. Most wars throughout history have been fought over far lesser grievances. The corrupted system perpetuates because (1) the US has no powerful peers providing an external threat, and (2) people generally believe they still fare better in a collapsing yet still-functioning America rather than embroiled in a civil war. Mostly it is a soft tyranny. The progressive agenda can be largely avoided by a disciplined community, besides the heavy taxation. Still, there must a limit to how grievously the fundamental social contract may be violated, even by an economic superpower.

The core clause of the fundamental contract is that the people, particularly the women and children, be protected from harm. Not only does the west routinely fail to protect her daughters from rape and murder, but it is increasingly unwilling to do so. Worse, the liberals seem almost to encourage that outcome. Recent examples abound. The Kate Steinle case became a national referendum on whether we will tolerate illegal immigrants coming and shooting American women. The verdict: that is fine. The Mollie Tibbetts case was leveraged as an opportunity to virtue signal liberal values by both the national media and the immediate family of the murder victim. In Europe, immigrant-on-native aggression is so rampant that women are encouraged to wear Muslim headscarves to help avoid being raped or even dismembered alive by Nigerian gangsters.

Lately, there seems to be a trend of western women being murdered while backpacking in non-western countries. Late last year, two bicyclists were murdered in Tajikistan, possibly because the female was not dressed to local expectations. Then two Scandinavian women were brutally murdered while camping in Morocco. Video soon surfaced on social media of a Danish woman being beheaded alive with a kitchen knife. It was surely beyond traumatizing for the girl's mother, who believed that sending the young blonde women to backpack alone in North Africa was a good idea, since all cultures are equal. (The press reports make no mention of the father.)

This week, the body of yet another young blonde backpacker, this one from England, was discovered in the bushes near a scenic overlook in Guatemala, after she had gone missing for several days. She was found naked, with numerous blows to the body, and died of impact trauma to the brain. A spokesman for the family has stated that they consider foul play to be unlikely, and have called assumptions that she was raped and murdered as "unnecessary and distressing."

“She died doing what she loved,” her parents said.

Presumably they don't take "what she loved" to mean being raped and bludgeoned to death and left to the vultures on a mountaintop in a 3rd world s-hole over 5000 miles from home. No, they must mean the scenario where the globe-trotting, carefree hippy, who had quit washing and whose own parents were unsure how to provide an up-to-date physical description, liked to strip down naked on popular hiking summits and managed to fall in such a way as to cause bruises, lacerations, and fatal brain damage. (More believable if she had been found below the overlook, rather than atop it, but entirely possible.)

The parents released a video while she was still missing, seen here. It's tempting to make assumptions about them, but they seem normal. It's possible they foolishly instilled into her the worldview that led to her grisly demise. But it's also entirely possible they disliked her lifestyle, yet had little control over the 23-year-old in the empowerment era. In any case, the strong pattern is that liberals of the west can't get enough 3rd world immigrants - who tend to rape and murder the native European ladies - and even go so far as to deliver the women right to their doorsteps. Not only does our civilization not protect our women and children from invaders, it opens the door to them, and whispers into the girls' ears, "go ahead, they won't bite. You aren't racist, are you?"

Piety + Irrationality

Last month, this blog's post Roll Call of the Absurd made a prediction about the political outlook for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez in response to her widely ridiculed Green New Deal.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released her Green New Deal last week. It's not worth reviewing much, as it is the most juvenile political proposal ever made. Even many liberals are openly mocking it or keeping their distance. Conventional wisdom is that AOC torpedoed her career right out the gate. I say she'll come out ahead in the long run. She just made herself high priestess of The Cult.

That prediction was made when even the likes of CNN and Nancy Pelosi were ridiculing the proposal, and many analysts thought that the freshly minted freshman representative had vastly overextended her political capital. Their analysis was based on political rationale, whereas here we categorize liberals as a secular religion. The most powerful political statement that can be made within The Cult is one that signals piety to the group dogma and is logically irrational. The notion that irrationality is preferred overall by today's liberals is the hypothesis being tested by predicting AOC would become more popular even while catching flak from her own party's leaders and propaganda outlets.

There is some early evidence to validate the prediction. From the Daily Mail, by way of Amren's article titled Ocasio-Cortez Draws Bigger Crowd at South by Southwest Than Any Democrat Candidate for President.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dominated the South by Southwest conference with her mere presence, bringing in a larger crowd than any of the 2020 presidential contenders, all of whom were asked about her or her Green New Deal in their own sessions at the popular event.

The 2,000 plus ballroom — one of the biggest in the Austin Convention Center — was packed, the overflow rooms were flooded with attendees and Bill Nye tweeted a photo of himself from the room waiting to hear the freshman Democrat from New York speak.

The crowd rose to its feet, whooping, cheering and hollering when Ocasio-Cortez entered, but, when she spoke, you could hear a pin drop.

She isn't even running for president. She couldn't - she's not old enough. And yet she's stolen the show even from the veteran foot soldiers vowing to end the reign of NeoHitler. How? Well, she knows the winning formula. Piety + irrationality.

Her performance at SxSW seems to have been a masterful one. Consider the original headline from the Daily Mail.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uses her SXSW talk to label FDR's New Deal 'racist' compared to her 'Green New Deal' and protests minorities being treated like 'garbage' - as she draws a bigger audience than any Democrat 2020 hopeful

She spent most of her time talking about the bad treatment of minorities, even going so far as to label the original New Deal - which her own political treatise parodies - as racist! That is some serious irrationality. Excellent touch. My only suggestion to her - and I could be wrong, it's her speciality after all - would be to back off slightly on the pandering to minorities. That's the domain of the lowly white candidates, who must grovel before POCs for their approval. No, as a proud woman of color, she can rise above that level slightly, and instead focus on attacking her enemies for their lack of piety. Call Nancy Pelosi a racist. Would it be insane for the lowest-ranking Democrat in the house to mutiny against the highest ranking? It's a leading question. As a minority, AOC actually outranks Pelosi in the ways that matter to Democrats at-large. Pelosi is already weak, babbling and demented, disliked by progressives who hate seeing old whites in power. With a sustained attack, initially subtle but increasingly aggressive, she could likely drive Pelosi out of power, single-handedly.

Another public performer was in attendance.

And there was a surprise during the Q&A session when Bill Nye the Science Guy came up to ask her a question, which earned a roar of delight from the crowd

Bill Nye is not very science smart, but he is very shrewd at gaining attention and praise from The Cult, just like AOC. He's an old white guy, which is almost a deal-breaker these days, but he largely redirects his fans by dressing up as a scientist, a revered priestly class amongst the left. And he has deliberately chosen not to have children, making him a role-model white guy to the modern progressive. He's the kind of guy who owns multiple homes throughout the country, and then shows off his solar panels to guests as a display of environmentalism. It's just irrational enough to work, and if he's showing up to lend support to AOC, she must be doing something right. Expect to see much more from her. (Also, brace yourself.)

No Right to Exist

Breitbart runs the headline today, Linda Sarsour Refuses to Acknowledge Israel’s Right to Exist. They are just as bad as any of the mainstream outlets at engaging in sensationalism and gotcha journalism. The only real difference is that their politics are more agreeable. But not in this case. Why should Sarsour have to state that Israel has a right to exist? It's hard to imagine she holds that opinion. Why compel her to pretend? The whole thing is just a heresy trap. The journalist who posed the question was hoping that she wouldn't confirm Israel's right to exist, which violates the moral principle that all national politicians - which she basically is - are supposed to put Israel's rights before any others. It's no different than CNN's Oliver Darcy getting Alex Jones banned from social media for making politically unapproved statements. It's all outrage porn that they sell to the public.

Where does Israel get this supposed right to exist? Certainly not from the UN, where support for Israel often emanates from a single, powerful vassal state ally. Jews might say that their right to exist comes from God, as they are the Chosen People. Fair enough - other than that most Jews don't really believe in God - but most Muslims do believe in Allah. There's no reason to expect them to respect the divine rights granted by a Jewish god to a secular people. No, Sarsour should not be expected to lie in defense of the Jews. After all, lying is a sin under the Torah.

In the modern era, rights are meaningless. They're just opinions. It is especially amusing when liberals appeal to universal human rights. Rights according to what? In the US, we have natural, or God-given, rights, based on the Lockean ideals of rights to life, liberty, and property. Fortunately for secular Americans, those rights still exist even if God doesn't. The "God-given" aspect was primarily a rebuke to the British monarch, who claimed a divine right to rule. The rights actually stem from a social contract theory of governance. In America, you agree not to violate the Constitutional rights of others, and feel secure that your own rights are legally protected. Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. The concept has been abused beyond all recognition. The liberals say things like, "every American has a right to a home." Of course we do! Your home is your domain, and neither the government nor other citizens can arbitrarily remove you from it. Ah, but that's not what they mean by rights. What they mean is you have the right to be given a home if you can't procure you for yourself. That means taking property from someone else. Rights as described by the left are always anti-rights, and they reject the actual rights specified in the Constitution (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, states' rights, etc).

That's a bit of a digression, but the point is none of this applies to foreign states. There is no social contract where Jews have a right to a homeland. They get what they can take and keep. Israel was founded - not all that long ago - by dispossessing the prior inhabitants, and by fighting several wars against neighbors who rejected their claim. The Jews have a right to a homeland. And so do Arabs. Who gets to possess that particular sliver of land on the east coast of the Mediterranean? Whoever can hold it. My preference goes to the Jews since Arabs control vast domains in the region already and the Jews are more capable of maintaining an advanced society in the arid lands. But that's hardly grounds to express moral indignation that Arabs might disagree. It's perfectly natural that they would.

Some related Breitbart articles were linked in their sidebar.

• Democrats to condemn 'All Hate,' Not Anti-Semitism Specifically, In Resolution. Conservatives are jumping all over Democrats, saying that their general renouncement of hate is a decision to not stand against anti-Semitism. Trump called their behavior shameful. But it's no different than the liberal media condemning Trump for renouncing hate on both sides in the wake of the Charlottesville incident. He was correct then. This blog said at the time that Trump was the only one acting like an adult. But, like most politicians, principle flies out the window when Israel is involved.
• ‘Legitimate Criticism’ of Israel is Democrats’ Phony Excuse for Ilhan Omar’s Antisemitism. Nothing Omar said was Antisemitic. I don't doubt she is anti-Semitic, nor do I care. My concern is she's anti-American, yet lives here anyway and was elected to Congress.
• Liz Warren Defends Omar: Calling Criticism of Israel Anti-Semitic Has ‘Chilling Effect'. The white Oklahoman who has spent most of her career brown-washing her own identity is correct. Is Fauxahontas now the prominent adult in the room?
• Bernie Sanders Defends Ilhan Omar in Antisemitism Crisis: ‘Legitimate Criticism’. Spineless communist and Hillary endorser-in-chief Bernie Sanders is also correct. He's also nominally Jewish.

Why are conservatives yielding easy moral victories to leftists? It is asinine. Just say what is obviously true. The Israeli lobby holds tremendous influence over Washington. America goes to war for Israel. In this particular domain, the Democrats are actually better than the Republicans. At this point, David Duke is more likely to endorse Warren or Sanders for president than Trump. Zionist control of the US is his big issue. It will be amusing to watch.

The one group of people that should be internalizing the reality that Jews have no right to be given a homeland is Jews themselves. They must defend their own position or they will be evicted. Their strategy of co-opting American military dominance to enact their desired foreign policy is a dangerous one. They become weak at self-defense. Hopefully their performance in the 2006 Lebanon war raised some alarms. Israel's survival lasts only as long as America is able and willing to provide money and military engagement. That American Jews then vote over 70% for Democrats is truly astounding. Not only are Democrats less sympathetic to Israel, but they favor a number of policies sure to erode American dominance. Jews are dependent on America while at the same time working towards its destruction.

We should take a similar lesson. White Americans have no right to their own homeland. Not even in the true sense of what rights are. That is, we aren't even permitted to state a desire for such a thing, let alone act in our own interests or expect to be given anything. We'll get what we can take and hold, just like all nations. It's the natural way, and no amount of quibbling about rights is going to change that.

A Government For the (non-White) People

We did it! Western society finally won a battle against the sodomites. UK public schools have backed off on homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren after outrage from conservatives Muslims. As Alex Jones describes it, the average UK Muslim is now more commendable than the average Brit. How the great Victorian society has fallen. If you're a Brit, you might almost have to wonder if strict sharia law wouldn't be preferable to the tyranny of the trannies. While one might suspect that liberals are facing an analogous conundrum, they probably aren't. It's already clear that Muslims outrank LGBTs on the victimhood hierarchy. If the left don't like being told they can't normalize their sodomy to children, well, keep flying those "Refugees Welcome" signs to find out how those refugees deal with homosexuals in the communities they control.

The major thing to note is that the government actually responded to the desires of unhappy Muslims. If white conservatives had protested, they likely would have been arrested for hate speech. That's no exaggeration. In England, you can be arrested and jailed for misgendering a transexual. Rejection of gay education could similarly be construed as violence against oppressed people, if the authorities wanted to. Further, any whites that led protests would likely face a virtual lynch mob seeking to dox their addresses and employers to intimidate them and ruin their livelihoods. (Firefox founder Brendan Eich was forced out of his own company for merely making a private donation towards protecting traditional marriage.) The Muslims, of course, are spared all this indecency. British society serves the interests of the non-British.

Last month's Roll Call of the Absurd noted that today whites must dutifully pay homage to blacks and other victim groups if they want even the chance to compete for the Democrat presidential nomination.

During her announcement, [Elizabeth Warren] referred to "people of color" so many times that even some liberals expressed annoyance. Of course, the Democrats are now the anti-white party, so any white people vying for power must recite the right prayers early and often.

Watching these displays promises to be one of the most entertaining aspects of the new political process. Bernie Sanders has announced he will be bringing anti-white activist Shaun King along on campaign events. The only question is whether King will lead Bernie out on a leash.

Former Denver governor and self styled "extreme moderate" John Hickenlooper announced his candidacy. His victimization angle?  “As a skinny kid with Coke-bottle glasses and a funny last name, I’ve stood up to my fair share of bullies.” Yeah, this dweeb is going to take on Trump. He clearly doesn't even understand the reality of his own party.

Common Dieting Myths

Wherever science meets government, always be suspicious. This blog frequently delves into the ludicrous theories that are often taken as standard dogma in fields like physics, biology, and climate studies, although the same pattern seems to hold regardless of the domain. At some point, more funding does more harm than good. The truly brilliant minds can normally get their work funded - or at least, I think we can agree that they should be funded. Once they are taken care of, more money means more meddling midwits who aren't likely to make significant scientific breakthroughs, but can certainly craft a grant application to match the acceptance rubric. People commonly believe that funding more scientists means that more good science is likely to occur, in the way that a whole team of prospectors is more likely to find nuggets of gold in a rocky stream. In reality, it just means more dependency on a federal funding narrative, where the truly creative insights are drowned out if not shunned altogether. It results in a brittle orthodoxy that is incapable of challenging its own basic assumptions. We've seen it time and time again. Scientists are willing to construct extravagant theories consisting of deeply nested unproven hypotheticals in order to avoid questioning core beliefs.

The most ludicrous theoretical construct in the more serious sciences that I'm aware of is the neutron star. It's the kind of thing you get when you couple publish-or-perish career progression with heavy government funding, particularly the NSF's preference to fund "high-risk, high-yield" research in hopes of finding the big breakthroughs. These kinds of results often range between amusing and annoying, but there is aways some degree of moral outrage because the government has stolen the money from taxpayers for such research. I do not consent to have my income highly taxed only to be rewarded with such national embarrassments. Even worse, however, is that the scientific consensus can actually be harmful. Of course, we're quite aware that climate-change theories - such as the consistently failing IPCC models - are being used to make disastrous economic decisions that have caused rolling blackouts in once first-world nations like Australia, and soon Germany. But on a more personal, day-to-day level, the government has for decades promoted bad nutrition advice, and continues to do so.

The most well-known governmental health advice was the iconic food pyramid with its broad base of grains and thin peak of meats and proteins. Nearly everyone I know who is dieting is on some sort of low-carb diet. Keto diets, which are extreme versions of carb cutting, are somewhat trendy. Thankfully, rejection of the food pyramid is common amongst actively health-aware dieters. But, mainstream nutrition beliefs and official government guidance have only slightly improved. The current model is ChooseMyPlate.gov, which was unveiled by First Lady Michele Obama. She said,

As long as half of their meal is fruits and vegetables alongside their lean proteins, whole grains and low-fat dairy, then we're good. It's as simple as that.

The increased emphasis on vegetables is the only real improvement. But overall, it still delivers the same message that made the food pyramid so dangerous: fats are bad, carbs are good. Harvard University released a modified version of the plate recommendations.

Harvard's plate features a higher ratio of vegetables to fruits, adds healthy oils to the recommendation, and balances healthy protein and whole grains as equal quarters of the plate, along with recommending water and suggesting sparing dairy consumption. 

Their model at least recognizes that fruits aren't that healthy and that oils are necessary. Other than the recommendation to avoid dairy, it's an improvement. Let's look at some specific examples of bad nutritional advice commonly promoted.

Grains are fundamental
Grains are unnecessary and should be limited, if not avoided entirely. They are ubiquitous because they grow well in European and North American climates and are easily transported and stored throughout winter. They became popular despite human dietary preferences. Grains consist mostly of carbohydrates and drive a massive insulin spike when consumed, which lowers metabolism and puts the body into fat-storing mode. Carbohydrates are primary fuels of the body, but are toxic in excess. After eating conventional meals, I frequently enter sneezing fits, which can be embarrassing in restaurants. I could never narrow the culprit down to any particular food allergy, but if I moderately limit carbs then the sneezes don't occur. Grains and excess carbs are an irritant to the body and cause all kinds of auto-immune disorders, as well chronic fatigue syndrome.

Fat is bad
People assume that fat in the body is caused by fat in food. Thus, we see the almost unquestioned assumption made by food producers and consumers that reduced fat is synonymous with healthy. It continues today, even with all the popularity of keto, paleo, and Atkins diets. Not only are fats essential as building blocks for our cell membranes, they are a preferable source of energy than carbohydrates. Fats and proteins are complex macromolecules. They are harder to digest than simple sugars, which are easily digested and consumed. In our evolutionary environment, food was scarce, thus we are designed to seek out sugar as the most efficient way to fuel the body. Even then, it was often feast or famine. Gorge on fruit when it comes in season, and the resulting belly fat will help you survive the winter. Today, there is no winter, and fruits never go out of season. So a high-fat diet is actually more natural, since we evolved to build up fat stores and then live off them in lean times. High-fat diets cause less fat accumulation on the body, because carbs eaters must eat every few hours to stave off hunger pangs.

There is a sub-myth that you should strain the fat out of ground beef. Most people do this without thinking about it. Of course, the recipes often mention it. The Hamburger Helper package says to strain the meat, probably because they can then put lower saturated fat values on the nutrition label. They know the populace has been trained to think fat is bad. The proper way to make Hamburger Helper is to buy the cheapest (i.e. least lean) beef at the store, and then don't strain it. It tastes better and makes for a healthier meal. It's amusing that the same people who will pay a premium for the fatty cut of beef in the steakhouse will go pay a premium for the lean beef in the grocery store, and then strain the best part into a jar.

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day
The logic of this is that meals should be eaten when we're active so that calories are consumed rather than stored as fat. Further, we are told that eating breakfast "kick starts" our metabolism in the morning, causing us to burn more calories throughout the day. Question, do you feel that your metabolism kicks in after a meal? Or do you feel kinda feel like lying down for a nap? The reality is that eating causes an insulin spike which lowers metabolism for several hours. Carbs have the biggest effect, and fats the least. Breakfast literally means "break fast" because it comes about 12 hours after the evening meal, which is where fasting mode begins. Eating in the morning takes the body out of a high metabolism fat-burning mode and back into feeding mode.

Some breakfast foods, like eggs and sausage, are very healthy, but should be eaten later in the day. Do cereal commercials on TV still boast "part of this complete breakfast" and then depict a child eating cereal, toast, fruit, and juice? Part of this ADHD diagnosis, more like. I do find it disturbing that we outlaw marijuana in this country to protect children, but then allow corporations to market and sell pure sugar to them as breakfast foods. Pop-Tarts should be banned, and all who push them incarcerated as felons. Do an experiment. First thing in the morning, eat a big bowl of cereal (skim milk only!), some healthy, nutritious whole-grain bread (no butter!), and a big glass of orange juice with all its yummy vitamin C. If 2-3 hours later you don't feel like absolute shit, then your body functions completely different than mine and you should ignore all the dieting advice in this post.

Eat many small meals per day
If physics, statistically the highest IQ field of study, can come up with such intellectual flops as neutron stars, imagine what the dummies in the other fields can do. When I was in college, I was amused by a gym poster that gave nutritional advice for various fitness goals. Trying to lose weight? You should eat 5-6 small meals per day. Trying to gain weight? You should eat 5-6 small meals per day. Training for athletic competitions? You should...well you get the idea. This advice is right up there with loading your child up with carbs before school. The belief is that fasting causes the body to go into "starvation mode" where it lowers metabolism and hordes all available nutrients as fat. The human body has evolved to store excess food as fat, and then consume it when needed. But we're supposed to believe that it responds to lean times by...storing more fat?? Fortunately for us, the human body did not evolve to be so stupid, unlike the modern dietician. Maybe that's not fair to say. Dieticians have just evolved to survive lean times too. They know that obese dieters naturally select for diets where they get to eat all day long, rather than the ones advising them to eat just once per day.

Eating all day means your body is constantly in high-insulin, fat storage mode. Eating all day, even in small amounts, ensures you won't lose weight and will always feel tired. Worse, the body becomes accustomed to the high insulin and even more carbs are needed to satiate hunger. If their theory was correct, then fasters in "starvation mode" should be extremely hungry, while the many small meal "dieters" should never feel hungry. But they're the ones who constantly say they're starving! Popular dieting advice amounts to feels over reals, it seems.

If you want to feel best, shift to a low-carb, high-fat diet with long stretches between meals. Skip breakfast, eat a light lunch with as few carbs as possible, and eat a big dinner to consume most of your daily calories. It's okay to permit some carbs, since they will be stored as fat and consumed during the day while your body is in ketosis. Of course, take it easy, because excess amounts of carbs are still bad for the body, and you're likely to become groggy and lose productive hours in the evening. I find that, once I get accustomed to a proper low-carb diet, it becomes somewhat self-reinforcing. Cheating feels like freedom from an oppressive dieting regimen, but then you feel like crap, and learn to avoid it. Eventually, a cookie doesn't even sound very appealing.

Doing the Jobs We Won't Do

We're often told that the country needs immigrants because they'll do the jobs that Americans - meaning whites - won't do. The reality is that many people refuse to do dirty jobs at the wages 3rd-world immigrants are willing to accept. It's contradictory to pretend to be both pro-immigration and for improving working class wages, but most politicians - of both aisles - do so anyway. Some on the right have quipped that the only job the immigrants are willing to do that most Americans aren't is in voting Democrat. (There's a lot of truth to that.) But, there seems to be a trend in the news of immigrants doing one job that white people are increasingly refusing to do: defending traditional western culture.

Ilhan Omar made waves a while back for calling out the extraordinary influence of the Israeli lobby in Washington. She was loudly condemned and forced to issue an apology. She's in the news again for making similar statements questioning why criticism of Zionist influence is off limits, and again being slurred as anti-Semitic. Not only can you not question Jewish influence, but apparently you also can't question why you can't question it. The incident exposes some bewildering political alignments. Liberals normally jump to the defense of Muslims as a reflex, but not when Israel is challenged! Both parties unite in defense of their AIPAC donors. The only people supporting Omar - besides other Muslims - are the anti-establishment factions of both sides. Far left progressives openly despise Israel, which is a little surprising given that they're normally quite obedient to the corporate media. The alt-right shares Rep. Omar's concerns, with figures such as David Duke expressing admiration for her bravery. The question arises: why is an immigrant the only Congressman willing to call out "allegiance to a foreign country"? And why exactly are we putting forth effort to elect white conservatives to defend our interests when a Somali Democrat is willing to do the job they refuse to do?

In Canada, a similar situations arises. "First nations", as they call the American Indians up there, aren't exactly immigrants, but the dynamic is close enough. A scandal has arisen in which the former Minister of Justice - the daughter of an Indian chief - has blown the whistle on Justin Trudeau for attempting to politically interfere with the administration of justice in her department, and then demoting her when she refused to comply. The Minister demonstrates courage and commitment to duty by her actions. We have to wonder how many of her predecessors weren't so virtuous. Must Canada now depend on its indigenous population to defend western rule of law?

A couple weeks ago, Tim Pool ran a story with the surprising headline, Muslims Threaten to Leave UK Over LGBT Education. (The only people threatened are those dependent on votes from foreigners.) It's a strange situation. Liberals ship in Muslims as a way to import votes, and to demonstrate allegiance to the cult of inclusiveness. But, outside of getting welfare provided by white taxpayers, Muslims pretty much hate liberals even more than we do. Unlike whites - so accustomed to incessant liberal indoctrination - Muslims take firm action against it. When it comes to defending traditional culture, these foreigners do the jobs that whites are no longer willing to do.