The Hero of The Right to Birth Control

The Hero of The Right to Birth Control

How did you celebrate Right to Privacy Day?

March 22, 2012 was the 40th anniversary of Eisenstadt v. Baird, Bill Baird’s 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized birth control for all Americans.  Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark case that became the bedrock of several privacy cases including Roe v. Wade (legalized abortion) and Lawrence v. Texas (gay rights victory).

Please click the above link, read about the man, Bill Baird, and donate, whatever you can.

A Tradition of Emasculation as a Class Construct

I came late to anti-feminism. I’m in my fifties. As a child abuse and multiple rape survivor I had thought, mistakenly, that the Feminist camp was my camp. The fact that two of my abusers were female, notwithstanding.

Even though I am a former teenaged runaway, I became highly successful and self-made, and I married up. Unfortunately, I had to escape the trophy husband too for benefit of my life at the cost of my money. In retrospect, I think that was his plan all along. I have therefore been forced to reevaluate my criteria for trust in another human being.

Somewhere along the way I came to realize that I have been abused as much by ideology as individuals and that individuals who have abused me were similarly abused by ideology. Top of the Progressive list of ideology harmful to character, families, and individuals has got to be Feminism.

Meanwhile, while I was married and raking it in during boom years in the Silicon Valley, my aunts, uncles, and cousins thought that I was just fine. After all, I had married a doctor. For what it is worth, most of my cousins are female–seven of them. Of the two males, only one holds my father’s surname.

This one male who carries my maiden name to the next generation–my first cousin–has worked hard all of his life for big corporations of the Fortune 100, and dutifully had two boys and two girls. For benefit of his career he has lived all over the world. He married a Kiwi. I like them all very much. His mother positively doted on him and apparently imbued into him a sense of duty in terms of carrying on the name of her in-laws.

My father, in contrast, moved us all around a tighter geographic circle for benefit of no one but the preservation of sick family secrets. For the longest time I was furious with him for being so little of “a man” that he would express his sexual sadism onto two young girls (my sister and I), while apparently depriving his long-suffering hysterical wife of either sexual satisfaction or comfort of class. I remember that I had to lie to friends (such as they were given that we moved every two to three years) to say that my father was “a businessman” rather than “chronically unemployed”. I remember that I had to curtsey before his abusive parents in order for our family to obtain yet another “loan”.

Meanwhile, my mother went off to school, established a career, and then was thereafter too busy, too tired, or too something to pay much of any attention to me, but yet had plenty to give in terms of her other career as an opera singer/church singer/volunteer/social butterfly. I understand that her audience was grateful for all of her efforts. I don’t suppose that she was actually grateful for my efforts in distracting my father’s sadism from her onto me. If she was, I suppose she might have spent a little more time with me and a little less time with her schooling, career, and fans.

While I was in my status marriage, living in my rigorously low key showpiece home in the hills of Berkeley, California, my cousin, Peter, came to visit me as a side-trip when he had the occasion to attend a conference back in the United States. We sat on the deck and admired the three bridge view. (San Francisco Golden Gate, Richmond, and Oakland Bay, with the San Mateo Bridge cut off by a wooded outcropping in the landscape).

Peter was in San Francisco to attend an industry-related conference for purposes of networking. He was trying to find a better paying job than what he could find in New Zealand. My recommendation, however, was to get a cow. After all, they lived in New Zealand. The kids could take care of her, there’d be plenty of milk, meat on occasion, and something for the kids to do which would produce these things of value and he wouldn’t have to earn as much in order to feed everyone royally. It would be a learning and character-building experience besides.

However, as he explained to me, getting these four kids into Ivy League schools was first priority. It was a burden no doubt impressed hard upon him by his mother (coincidentally, the daughter of my diva soprano mother’s voice coach) and our shared paternal grandmother–experts in shaming behavior–all of them.

So, my cousin and his family left New Zealand, traipsed about the world on his new employer’s dime, and then eventually left for an even better paying job in New England. Eventually wife Lucy took a job outside the home after raising these four beautiful, intelligent, unabashedly Christian children. She’s a real dynamo and I happen to like her more than any of my own female blood relatives even if I am not so foolish as to discuss religion with her.

Number one son is now at Stanford and number one daughter and father were recently visiting my sister in New Jersey while daughter was college shopping (Princeton and U of Penn being first choices).

Here’s how my mother recounted the visit:

Last Wednesday we went down to your sister’s to visit with Peter and Isabelle who were doing the college rounds.  She will graduate from prep school next spring.  You probably know that Kyle is at Stanford,  having not been admitted to the U of Pennsylvania,  alas.  Also alas, Peter is unemployed again.  Isabelle teased him about how he was supposedly doing the work around the house that Lucy is too busy supporting the family to have time for.  He nearly blushed.

If my cousin Peter were to ask my opinion (unlikely), I would tell him he should forbid his daughter from watching television which reinforces the very public humiliation techniques that supposedly our “educated” family is too lofty to adopt in exchange for having her prep school and university education wholly paid for.

The insensitivity of my mother astounds me. Here I had been laboring under the misapprehension that it was she who was the victim in her marriage. However, the smugness in her tone tells me that she gets a perverse satisfaction in my father’s career of failure which has morphed in his Golden Years to indentured servitude to my mother. Could this have been what she wanted all along? Could her career of hysteria actually contributed to my father’s career paralysis? I realize it makes no sense at all for a child abuse victim to identify with her perpetrator (and I don’t) but it seems to me that my mother chose him for a reason.

I apparently chose my own monster for a reason–to finally redeem myself from “black sheep” to role model, with my hard-won career being absolutely secondary to that enterprise. All that mattered was who was my husband. That much is clear. However, I cannot dodge the emotional underpinning of my own wanting to belong to a man who loved me. No amount of careerism, independence, or “consciousness-raising” erased that. All it did was distort my own ability to act in my own best interests in choosing love over appearances.

Meanwhile, I want to warn Peter, not to leave the lovely young Isabelle alone with my father such as would naturally occur around holidays and such if Isabelle were going to school in the vicinity of my family. However, what will probably happen is that the too lovely Isabelle will marry either an emasculated wimp or a predator after first establishing a brilliant career–a marriage which will dissolve the moment she gets her first miscarriage or facial wrinkle. I find myself not caring about her and caring less about my mother’s feelings than apparently she does.

It seems to me that the character of each generation degrades a bit. I don’t regret myself not having children. Perhaps it would be best for our overly class-conscious shaming-factory to die off, eventually.

Meanwhile, I wonder how life would be if my father hadn’t been so shamed by his mother. I wonder, given her nearly perfect parents, how Isabelle turned out to have such a rude and ungrateful streak. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn’t married the evil surgeon, hadn’t concentrated on my career, but rather had married the first truck driver to offer me his jacket when he picked me up hitchhiking to California.

Population Sustainability

A friend of mine thinks that global population is not out of control and that there are plenty of natural resources for everyone on this planet. The problem is that there are a greedy few who monopolize resources for themselves. Therefore, all of us “good” people should just keep right on over-reproducing in order that someday we might outnumber our oppressors and then by sheer mass unseat them. I am speaking in hyperbole rather than quoting directly for purposes of making a point.

Whereas, as a former globe trotter, the population realities that I have seen with my own eyes paint a different picture altogether.

I have seen dying coral reefs, erosion, and the shanty towns that produce this effect, complete with untreated sewage. The effect is nothing short of an infestation of humanity. I have seen squatters living in garbage dumps and all matter of Juarez-style maquiladoras.

In degraded camps of former farmers and peasants, the families compete with each other for territory by over-reproducing and thereby poisoning each others’ chickens, pigs, and children with their sewage or otherwise producing a diseased, contamination effect to include Hepatitis and other food and water-born illnesses. The survivors of such a system clearly have superior immunity but by sheer malnutrition suffer from stunted growth, reduced cranial size, and damage to their own genome. They are never going to be great thinkers or philosophers no matter what form of “education” suffered upon them.

The toxic wars that one family wages on another family for purposes of gaining territory and perhaps future economic advantage is like a system of competing anemone colonies with the specialized warrior classes at the thin red line of genetic demarcation stinging and poisoning each other. The colony with the most poison-resistance and most toxic venom is thus able to command increasing territory. How evolved.

I can’t even blame the Catholic Church for this phenomenon. Rather, it would seem, that as usual, giving poor women economic choices beyond simple motherhood always results in a reduction in population, which means, cleaner water, less mountaintop stripping (for purposes of fast-squatter’s-rights agriculture), less erosion, less crime, and fewer malnourished genetically compromised children growing up to fish through coral and otherwise devastate estuaries of “low hanging fruit” until the population of food sources are eliminated while the population of children increases.

Charitable efforts to “feed the world” usually amount to nutritional dearth and even obesity while not actually correcting malnourishment. Please see my other writings on the subject here:

Of course, in overpopulated marginal areas, every once in a while a tidal wave/mudslide/epidemic thins everyone out. How is this type of suffering and carnage deserved by the innocent child victims? Obviously, I am not a Malthusian.

Meanwhile, in the west, birth rates are dropping precipitously. Perhaps in our shrinking world, the effects of overpopulation reach around the globe.

Food for thought: Sometimes the effect manifested by population decline can be used to identify the cause.


The Return of Patriarchy

Some early hunter-gatherer societies may have also limited population growth by giving women high-status positions. Allowing at least some number of females to take on roles such as priestess, sorcerer, oracle, artist, and even warrior would have provided meaningful alternatives to motherhood and thereby reduced overall fertility to within sustainable limits.

As more and more Western women are choosing these sorts of roles (albeit largely on an informal or individual basis), it would seem to me that a sociological underpinning might well be perceived overcrowding, limited opportunities for their children, or otherwise a lack of a fulfilling life ahead for those children. In my view, anyone who willfully reproduces knowing full well that the prospects of their progeny are dim is committing child abuse or—at the least—a narcissistic objectification of their children as economic tools with which to garner economic support from another party (the father, in-laws, the state, etc.).

However, if prospective parents have a business or apprenticeship that the children can grow into or otherwise are providing a means to make a living directly or indirectly, and to lead a fulfilling, full-fledged life including love, philosophy, and reasoning, those children are being born into a sustainable environment and therefore, reproduction is a sensible and moral choice. Whereas, expecting “society” with all the pathology that implies to support one’s children is to voluntarily abdicate personal responsibility for them. That is also—in my view—child abuse, otherwise known as Communism.

More from the same article:

Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

Therefore, perhaps a sustainable model for society is to offer women all of these choices. Obviously, demonizing patriarchy would be a self-fulfilling suicide for society, along with the resulting matriarchy by default or design. However, is there room in our world for the acceptance and glorification of both paths? Perhaps this is the key to sustainable development rather than boom-and-bust stock market system monopolization, leading to extreme wealth inequality, as well as genome degradation and lack of genetic diversity in all populations regardless of whether there is population growth.

However, it would seem today that secular Feminism is being promoted worldwide like a religion (see along with all the stinging devolved anemone behavior of poor people. Degrading masculinity is genetic suicide, cultural suicide, and productivity suicide. Where will it all lead? Somehow I don’t think it will be pretty.

Are you coming to Detroit? Good! I’ll see you there!

In spirit.



AVfM is hosting the First International Men’s Conference in Detroit on June 27th and 28th and I am super excited about it!  I will be attending the conference along with my husband and I am really looking forward to meeting all the people I regularly read or interact with on the internet in person.  The speaker line up is impressive, and I can’t wait to hear them all, but I am honestly hoping that commenters show up in droves too.  I won’t be presenting at the conference, I’m just there to listen and learn and I hope I will be surrounded by many like-minded others.

Actually, I hope we get some petulant feminist protesters, too.  That should be fun.

The speaker lineup includes Dr. Warren Farrell, author of the Myth of Male Power and he is really good at getting feminist panties tied in knots, based on a

View original post 256 more words

Progressive Wonderman! (Dopamine to the Rescue!)

A video series on masculinity inspired in me an epiphany on my own life and the degradation of society.

Here’s the first video in the series:

The video describes in simple language how to gain authority in a relationship and the responsibility that entails. The advice is directed at men in heteronormative relationships however it seems to me that the advice would apply to anyone attempting to establish authority in any type of relationship.

I recognized the advice immediately as valid because I am lucky enough to finally (in my fifties!) to find a man who provides that necessary authority to me. The fact that he does it out of love—loving oneself is necessary in order to love others—has also taught me about love. These lessons—love and authority—were entirely missing from my childhood and just barely present by way of my career but not where it counted—in my personal life. This, unfortunately, made me terribly vulnerable to manipulation including a marriage of brainwashing, terror, kidnapping, and robbery—a poor substitute for love and authority in all aspects—but the usual lot of a dopamine addict—turned into one by the first people in my life to tell me that they “loved” me—my family.

I decided not to have children myself and I don’t regret that choice.

It also seems to me that authority is missing from most westerner’s lives, and the blame for that, in my opinion, can fall squarely on the soft squishy shoulders of feminism!

To be fair, a void in authority is bound to inspire something to fill that void by way of bravado/bravada, aggression, and terror—usually by those least qualified to fill it. It seems to me that feminism has attempted to fill the void left by an absence of authority figures. It brandishes, “love and acceptance” as the reward, but only power-grabbing without responsibility rather than true authority—don’t forget that dopamine fix.

Naturally, for lesbians—whether by choice or necessity—feminism is seen as a friendly ally. However, I contend that even for that population, appropriate role models of authority are strangely missing today with very few exceptions. Rather, feminism welcomes as “authority” the two-dimensional superhero I like to call Progressive Wonderman! Progressive Wonderman can be a cis-female or an appropriately short-attention-spanned male. This is the new and improved White Knight coming to a Third Wave outlet near you!

Feminism seems to believe that feelings and emotions are effective substitutes for love, group-think for acceptance, and bravada without responsibility substitutes for authority. This distortion can be found throughout feminist propaganda.

Meanwhile, our police state brandishes terror and forced conformity as a substitute for authority. For a reminder, try to board an airplane.

Feminism, government, and the police state is our mother and father. Naturally, government also picks up the responsibility mantel because Westerners have been conditioned to abandon it in themselves, following the lead of the feminists.

One of the ways this condition manifests is by forcing cross-gendered roles on both men and women, which is to say, there never really was anything stopping women from becoming scientists or men from becoming preschool teachers, (if there is a will there’s a way), contrary to revisionist history myth. Today, society withholds approval from men who are not considered “nurturing” or equipped with the rhetoric of “feelings”. Nurturing, of course, stands in for the traditionally masculine responsibility of caring for those for whom he wields authority. For women, society withholds respect unless they pick up the role of dominance.

As described in the video, many of the men who are unable to exercise authority come from single-parent (single mother) households and are therefore taught nurturing, that is, filling the void of the missing responsible authority figure but without actually taking on authority—only the nurturing responsibility.

However, the love that comes from the son’s mother in the form of gratitude has no relationship to sexual or romantic love which, in a woman, typically manifests itself as a fantasy or yearning for dominance. However, since dominance in a man is forbidden in the feminist narrative, anything that even remotely resembles authority is denounced as abuse.

As a multiple abuse survivor and former teenaged runaway, I am in no position to either wield authority or to be an example of adult perfection; however, I can see the void, and understand just how fulfilling it is to have that void filled (to be deliberately redundant). It is calming and “centering” to use a neo-feminine “feelings-speak”.

Furthermore, I no longer have the visible academic credentials to command respect, thanks to the devious machinations of my multitude of abusers—most especially my ex-husband but also the ephemeral characteristic of the modern, internet-driven world to erase and replace whole human narratives, seamlessly, as if I no longer exist.

Fortunately, however, that is no longer important to me because I have reinvented myself as Caprizchka, and being that I am still alive against all odds, I have nothing left to fear. Dopamine addicts are good for something.


Planets are abused by comets.

Ova are abused by spermatozoa.

Therefore, we must reduce the motility of comets and spermatozoa in order that they behave more like planets and ova.

Furthermore, we need to devote universal resources in order to educate and promote planets and ova to behave more like comets and spermatozoa.

We must also eradicate all things that hurt planets and ova.

For example, we need to eradicate volcanoes, earthquakes, and all things that damage the protective atmosphere of planets and reduce their gravity.

We need to eradicate genetic defects, womb environment defects, and all things that may impact the cycle of ova.

We need to eradicate time so that planets and ova can be young and beautiful forever.

We need to stop comets from taking gravity and genetic material from one planet and giving it to another.

We need to stop fertilized ova from dividing into twins, triplets, etc.

If only we can do these things, we shall have a perfect utopia that shall exist throughout all eternity.

Copyright 2014 Caprizchka

Diet, Behavior, and Violence in Under Nourished Creatures

Judgy Bitch wrote an article which reminds me of what I learned from breeding and raising German Shepherds and dual-purpose goats in Venezuela.

She talks about how fathering differs from maternal instinct and dispels a lot of myths with regard to sexual choices, monogamy, and primacy differences between the sexes. Feminists will probably be outraged and indignant to see their sacred cows so well-skewered.

Is women’s sexuality profoundly narcissistic? That would explain a lot.

She describes how alpha males do indeed care for and invest in their children contrary to myth of philandering and child abandonment being primal to males. Whereas females seem more concerned with hypergamy (at least today) and their own vanity than the best interests of their children. This is a reverse of the feminist narrative which says that men wander and women nurture.

She hypothesizes that “rape culture” grows out of rape fantasies which are the only sexual outlet for females who are simply no longer attractive, in any sense of the word.

For me, the elephant in the room is nutrition because I believe that both sexes have the capacity to be either nurturing parents or narcissists. However, nutrition and character in general has suffered more in the female world due to an obsession with dieting and therefore resulting in nutritional deficiencies in women being the norm rather than the exception at least in The West. It would seem to me however that some men are catching up with women in the narcissist pendulum, being just as obsessed with their bodies and food as women are. This does not bode well for children and I suppose it is Nature’s way of reducing the population of Earth. Of course, propaganda and industry have a role, and–like it or not–are evidence of human nature as well and therefore also responsive to the economic realities of there being more humans than resources to sustain them.

I had a male German Shepherd sire who was just as protective of outside pups as his own (saved one from drowning) and a female German Shepherd who was happy helping out a non-relative female with her pups, caring for them tenderly.

I fed those dogs mostly meat, organs, bones, eggs, and milk, plus a little commercial dry food for convenience and insurance.

I had a billy goat who was castrated after giving birth to a son with superior genes (due to a higher lactating female than the sire’s mother). I caught him drinking his son’s urine and once he was stoked with testosterone, he killed his own son.

So much for vegetarians being more peaceable than carnivores.

The goats had access to a broad array of pasture, fruit, tree bark, weeds, etc., but I had purchased the sire from another farm, who kept him confined with a bucket of grain.

Naturally, I had to purchase a new sire and this time didn’t castrate him after his possible heirs had been born–but rather just slaughtered him outright. His heir grew up to be a far more manageable goat with humans. Furthermore, all the females loved him so much they fought over who would sleep beside him. He, however, was just as dominant (and sexually prolific) as the other billy goats.

What these two experiences taught me is that a good diet results in both patience and dominance, hallmarks of high testosterone. For a dog, that diet is primarily carnivorous; whereas for a goat, that diet is diverse forage rather than captive grain. By the way, the alpha male dog described earlier would insist that the contents of the stomach of a slaughtered goat be his, leaving only the barest remnants as his noblesse oblige for the rest of the pack.

Perhaps the obesity epidemic is responsible for the rape culture hysteria. Perhaps the commodity-driven dietary advice including that which supposedly slows global warming (it doesn’t) is entirely the wrong one for a more peaceable culture.

A well-nourished society is a more peaceful one–until it is time to hunt. Perhaps this ability to compartmentalize peace and hunting or war is what makes for a good father who in turn passes on his nurturing impulses to the females in his realm–by example–and by giving them some of the fruits (or rather meats) of his labors.

Copyright 2014 Caprizchka

Vive la Différence

This article describes how some women turn men into their workhorses through manipulation and how a luggage experiment disappointed some feminist researchers as interpreted by the Equalist set:

Reading it reminds me just how out of touch I am with the MGTOWs who seem to want the right to be treated more like women. To each their own. That said, I do agree with them that laws have gone way too far in the Feminist direction, albeit my preference is more toward the Libertarian/Anarchist direction rather than expecting the state to “reform”.

The article describes how women are helped or are not helped with their luggage in a tone which suggests to me gleeful vindictiveness on the part of the MGTOWs. Those bitches will just have to schlep their own luggage! I sympathize. I hate those whiny feminists too. However, I’m not so keen on the whiny MGTOWs either.

I did a similar “experiment” myself when I traveled Europe a month alone. I tend to travel heavy because changing my clothes frequently is part of what a vacation is to me. I’m superficial that way but then again, so are vacations. By the way, I was determined to do the entire vacation by train and metro. At the time, I was a big and tall muscular woman in my late 40’s. I’m in my 50’s now and perhaps not quite so gung ho.

If you can imagine the size of my clothes, well, the size of my suitcase was commensurate. Let it be known that the Madrid and Paris subways were not particularly luggage friendly. But that’s OK, I wrestled billy goats for my day job. At least the suitcase doesn’t struggle or butt.

But I was tired after an all nighter in a budget recliner seat from Madrid to Paris and slogging that suitcase up and down stairs was probably starting to show on my face. Imagine my surprise when a slight young woman wearing a Hijab approached me, looked up, smiled, and grabbed my suitcase. I protested! I didn’t want her to hurt herself! As a matter of fact it was usually young women and older men who offered to help me in Paris, however, since I didn’t want an injured back on my vanity conscience, I would decline with a smile. If the party would persist, I would explain that carrying my suitcase was fun for me, and besides it helped me to work off all the fine French cuisine I love so much in between volunteering on French farms. However, the one time when an older man with a clearly hearty bearing offered to help me, I accepted graciously, admiring his fine form, and even flirted with him. That was fun too!

For what it was worth, at the time, there was a tad more “chivalry” from young strong men in Madrid than Paris. How ironic, albeit, of course, they call it “machismo”. I would have been delighted if one of them had been brave enough to offer this old Amazon an indecent proposal. As it were they were as respectful of me as if I were their madre, which was fine for me too.

However, I think next time I do a farm-volunteering vacation, I would like it to be in Spain, because, it seems to me that their food still results in gender-differentiation more toward my liking, whereas perhaps MGTOWs would prefer Paris where they can sneer at the anorexic fashion models struggling with their luggage.

Why I am Not an Equalist

If men and women are no different then why bother having sex with each other in all the myriad definitions of “sex”?

If men and women are no different, that degrades all the wonderful things that men do including make a world for women that compensates for the limitations of women’s (and men’s!) biology.

I do not believe that women want a world of wimpy, hurt, whiners, who are afraid of breaking a nail, and gigantic mean women picking up their slack, but it would appear that is where we are going until women learn to appreciate what makes a man different from a woman.

If women ever learn to fully transcend the limitations of our biology it will be due overwhelmingly to the inventions of men. Should that occur and women do not rise to the challenge of maintaining infrastructure, protecting men, etc. in favor of simply preserving their youth and beauty, they are in for a rude backlash. I’m sorry if that makes me not an “equalist”.

I recognize that there are individuals who choose to be transgendered or gender-fluid and I don’t believe that it degrades them to celebrate their “rebellious” stance; however, in terms of “revolutions” I believe that scientifically, biologically, and psychologically this one will fail. I believe that men are kinder than women to other women. I have seen disparate men work together to accomplish meaningful, tangible things while disparate women simply cat fight or come up with nonsense platitudes that homogenize differences for the “sake of peace”. Whereas, “diplomacy” is a masculine art. This may be because War is also a masculine art albeit I contend that the subconscious or conscious motivation for all wars is feminine materialism. Whereas, for men, the subconscious or conscious motivation is sex, which I find to be a nobler objective.

This does not say that there are not many fine female leaders of all sorts only that such women should be recognized as being distinct from the majority and should be required to petition for exceptions to their biology. Such women have always existed throughout history and did not require any special “rights” granted to them by the state in order to fulfill their destinies.

Since I believe in a small state, whereas both feminism and “equalism” require a large state, I am willing to sacrifice “equality” for “freedom”.

Bad Science Apologizes for Third World Obesity

The usual garbage produced by corporate-educated science apologists:

This video describes the increasing obesity in the Third World and comes up with the most ridiculous explanations using selected anecdotal evidence. The only real information are as follows:

  • Nestle, Kraft, and Unilever are engaging in their usual predatory marketing tactics–no different than drug dealing–targeting the desperately poor. Revealing this fact is designed to disguise the true agenda of these academic “do-gooders”.
  • There is a genetic link initiated by the pregnant mother’s diet.
  • Small farmers need to be supported and the value of their products allowed to rise (but not by the First World because that’s a Trojan Horse!)
  • Obesity is not the result of “poor character.”

Why has the consumption of traditional foods reduced dramatically in the developing world? Is it because the people aren’t “educated” or lack “critical thinking”? Or has poverty combined with outside intervention actually reduced the wealth of the people such that they cannot afford to produce their traditional foods and therefore are forced to rely on corporate food/commodities depleted of all meaningful nutrients? Why wouldn’t an individual, family, or small community choose to be nutritionally self-reliant? Because government and industry working in partnership prevent such individuals from doing so by forcing them to assimilate and be “educated” to be dependent on industry and specialized “professionals” who have no holistic knowledge of economics and nutrition.

Obesity is a condition of malnourishment and stomach surgery won’t solve that. Giving all the obese poor people free surgery to reduce stomach capacity or free medical care won’t solve malnutrition. Malnutrition stimulates hunger especially for the insulin-resistant obese who are also burdened with lack of energy via inefficient ATP production.

The problem here isn’t lack of “science” it is simple brutal mathematics: Monopolized resources administered by a few over a burgeoning population of poor people. What is so difficult to understand?

A calorie is not a calorie: A calorie without nutrients starves the body because it requires more nutrients to metabolize it than a calorie that is accompanied by nutrients. Fat, protein, or sugar that is free of nutrients is like bad oil in an engine and sugar in the gas tank.

The concept that the problem is “food combining” of fat, sugar, and salt is simply bad science. The concept that the problem is “too much fat” or “too much sugar” is bad science. The concept that the problem is “snacking” or “availability of food” is simply bad science.

Who is “educating” the scientists? The same people who are monopolizing the resources.

Even “whole foods” can be packaged, monopolized, and marketed. Meat and dairy products are expensive to distribute whereas vegetables, fruits, and starches are cheap and with a high profit margin. Telling people that the cheap food is “healthier” is propaganda and bad science. Taxing “unhealthy food” merely makes it more valuable so that is also a “non-solution”.

The surefire “solution” is for the First World to stop interfering in the cultural matters of the Third World. Easier said than done. Academics and do-gooders, after all, have to justify their funding.