The Estrogenation of the American Diet as a Product of Culling Campaigns
(The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.)
There is a running joke on the internet about “Soy Culture” which describes effeminate men who buy into the health food market, especially into soy products, often labeled as a healthier alternative to dairy products. This has fueled some paranoia about the amount of estrogen in the American Food Supply, so I will bring my arguments about this.
By my ken, this campaign began roughly 100 years ago. There was a paradigm shift with the industrial revolution which left a small number of people very rich and very powerful. These were the heads of industries and government, along with the heads of mass media which was rapidly growing more powerful due to the ability of mass transport to distribute things like newspapers.
This group of people had an immense amount of power and influence, well beyond their own countries, and this money and power essentially put them in a position comparable to kings. The difference between being a businessman and a king is that once you are “king” you now become the main target of any sort of peasant uprisings.
The West had been notoriously plagued by peasant uprisings against authority such as the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The ability of the peasants to collectively form violent mobs which threaten the authority was a very well-known force, and these new plutocrats knew about this threat very well.
Even though these people did not have royal titles such as “king”, their wealth and power made it very easy for peasants to draw the parallel, and this meant that these plutocrats knew the dangers they would face if the peasants decided to revolt against them. Due to this threat, there was the necessity to prevent this from happening.
The Initial Peasant Culling Campaigns
The initial campaign is evidenced by WW1 and WW2, which were designed predominantly culling campaigns and clearly did little to change the borders of the nations involved, which had typically been the primary motivation of wars in the past.
These campaigns were agreed upon by the plutocrats of each nation, with the political offices of each Nation filled with hand-picked executors of the whims of these plutocrats. This had been commonplace for quite some time and remains true to this day. Clearly the people who own the peasants aren’t going to let the whims of the peasants dictate their own actions. The man who rides the horse directs the hose, not the other way around.
Even if the politicians pretend to be pandering to you on the campaign trail, usually politics consists of “Tell the peasants that they want what the plutocrats want, then they vote for one of the the plutocrat’s two largely identical candidates, with any differences in policy arising solely in order to create the illusion of choice and difference between the two options.”
The American Government is an extension of the economy, and there’s no Fortune 500 company that is going to allow the whims of the peasants to dictate their decisions, even if those companies are still willing to pander and create the illusion that they care about the peasants in order to build customer loyalty.
One example I can think of is the big Gay Pride flag in the Amazon Warehouse, despite Amazon having little interest in contenting the peasants when this does not serve their business interests. The flag allows Amazon to create the illusion that they “care about peasants” with a $100 flag, without having to invest anything more into pleasing them. It just says “Look, this if your flag. I’m not your enemy. Go attack somebody else.”
Culling as it Relates to World Wars
Culling (Wikipedia) here is not just a “mass killing”, but it is the deliberate sorting of a type of animal in order to remove them from the population. Men were the ones being sorted, and the plutocrats were attempting to sort out key traits in men which they found to be threatening to them personally.
These traits included high-testosterone males capable of succumbing reckless fury and violence; feeling rage as opposed to sadness; feeling a strong sense of national or racial identity which the individual is willing to fight and die for; exhibiting bravery as opposed to cowardice; exhibiting loyalty to one’s people as opposed to treason; and the predisposition to be so compelled to attack a scapegoat group that the person can justify lethal force against them. These traits are typically associated with the “Alpha” stereotype on the internet.
The argument being that these traits are likely heritable, as we can see this very clearly in dogs, and humans are little different genetically than dogs, as we share 84% of the DNA and humans remain animals in a biological sense. Thus, by culling these genetic traits and removing these men from the gene pool before they reproduce, you are able to minimize the amount that these traits will appear in subsequent generations.
When you kill of these “Alpha men”, this leaves you with a majority of “Beta” men who will reproduce. The traits of these people being defined as having low-testosterone and aversion to violence; feeling sadness as opposed to rage; feeling little sense of national or racial identity and no willingness to fight for this; exhibiting cowardice as opposed to bravery; exhibiting loyalty to self above one’s people; and a reluctance to physically attack a scapegoat group.
The point is that, much like a wolf-pack, the Beta males will still follow the Alpha leader, but by killing off the natural Alphas among the peasants, this leaves the Beta peasants without a leader, and this is where the government and media now replaces the traditional role of the Alpha. These Betas, naturally in need of some strong leader, have nowhere to turn but the government and media because the natural leaders in their community have largely been culled and are now absent.
The logic of war dictating that the Alpha men, being aggressive, would go out, fight aggressively, and likely get killed. The Betas, being more cowardly, are more likely to survive due to the unwillingness to fight or the interest in hiding in the back.
That being said, this was a very fast-and-loose process, and some Alpha men either survived the two wars, or existed in the age range that avoided the draft. Some Alphas did go on to reproduce, and this was especially true among minority groups such as the African Americans who were generally prohibited from fighting in the war due to segregation, thus did not experience this substantial culling to their gene pool.
As the war ended and peacetime followed, now the plutocrats need to take account of their livestock (peasants). The Whites were culled fairly well due to their high involvement in the war, but the coloreds and new 3rd world immigrants generally were not subjected to this culling.
The only immigrants who had been culled in this way were the Chinese who had seen similar fighting during the Communist Revolution, and would otherwise be killed for questioning the state if they were too masculine and prone to fighting or aggression.
The plutocrats needed to address the culling of Alphas in minority groups that the plutocrats deemed necessary, but were at a loss. Clearly another war would be unpopular, but there were small wars such as Vietnam and the Gulf War to cull off a small number of minorities in the now increasingly minority dominated armies, but these were never in the same scale as WW1 and WW2 because it would be difficult to get public support for a world war again.
This established the classic two-pronged approach. The first prong is the enthronization of food, especially canned food eaten by poor people, through the estrogenic BPA can liner. This is designed to minimize the risk of pseudo-Alpha men becoming full Alphas, but also to ensure that those who would become Alphas suffered from irrational decision making and impulsivity which defines men and women with high amounts of estrogen.
This estrogenized food was paired with the lead in the water of urban areas and the lead in gasoline. Increasing the amount of lead in a person’s body leads them to become prone to irrational thinking, impulsivity, and prone to violence, as well as reduces the mental capacity of the person suffering from lead poisoning.
This was the way for the plutocrats to ensure that the colored Alphas, usually living in cities and exposed to much car exhaust, would become prone to irrational violence and likely kill each other in a blind rage or over petty squabbles over money or pride rather than organize themselves, use rational logic to identify an enemy group, then attack the plutocrats who kept them poor in the first place.
The Establishment of the Narcotics Trade
The plutocrats realized they needed that for this process, they needed a way to cull minority Alphas, to separate them from the group, and put them in a position where they are likely to wage war with each other. The plutocrats didn’t care about killing colored Betas, and largely only wanted to target the colored Alphas. There was little reason for black-on-black violence at the time, so the plutocrats needed to create one.
The plutocrats knew that poor people wanted money, so they helped to establish the narcotics trade as a major source of power and wealth in poor, urban areas. This also served the purpose of minor genocide against these people due to drug abuse, but the money involved also culled the Alpha minorities into this “Drug Dealer/Gang Member” role due to the natural propensity of the Alpha to compete for power and dominance, both of which in this case stem from money.
Now, with the normalization of crime in the form of narcotics trade, the once taboo thought of committing murder can be normalized. They say “I’m already going to prison for life if I get caught selling drugs, so murdering somebody isn’t going to change this fact.” When you’re already going to go to prison if you get caught, logically, there’s no additional punishment for murdering people.
At this point, the lead poisoned estrogenized colored Alpha males begin to wage war over drug revenue, and this leads to a prolonged period of urban strife among minority groups stemming from the conflicts that arise over this money.
The normalization of crime and murder also normalized behaviors like petty murders during a home invasion robbery, because these people became callous to the taboo of murder and saw it as a justifiable means to the end of making money.
The Death Toll and Justifications
This amount of murder is roughly 10,000–20,000 people a year. And with a 30-year campaign from 1960 to 1990, this is about 300,000 to 600,000 deaths, comparable in scope to the culling of American White Men during WW1 and WW2 combined, especially considering the minimal involvement of America and the fact that minorities only made up about 30% of the USA, with Blacks, the primary target of this campaign, comprising around 10–15%.
The disproportionately greater killing of black Alphas in this campaign when compared to American White alphas during WW2 was likely justified more by the higher fertility and teen pregnancy rates of blacks when compared to Whites, thus rending the culling and killing of an Alpha less effective because he has already reproduced.
This could also have been justified by the apparent predisposition to self-righteous and community-driven “mob mentality” violence among black people as evidenced by international murder rates in predominantly Black countries, indicating a greater density of Alphas within the black community when compared to other races.
This greater capacity of the black race to form violent groups unified by racial identity or socio-political purpose is often seen in the recent black protests such as the Revolutions in South Africa and Zimbabwe, and to a lesser extent in the Rodney King Riots and George Floyd Riots. When you compare the damage done in these riots when compare to the ethnically White 1/6 Capitol Riots, clearly the Black community is a much more significant threat to the establishment.
The near instantaneous unification of people, their willingness to go out into the streets and fight, and damage done by the riots is substantially higher among Black-driven movements. The ethnically White Capitol riots produced minimal damage to property and minimal death toll, where the Rodney King and George Floyd riots produced a greater number of deaths and much greater damage to property.
How does this relate to Soy Culture?
The slow phase-out of lead from gasoline from 1974 to 1996, eventually reaching 0% lead in 1996, meant that the original two-pronged approach of culling has lost one of its prongs. Lead poisoning was what made people quick to anger, have reduced reasoning and long-term planning, and predisposed to violence.
Following the phase-out of lead in gasoline and other household products, this meant that there is only the estrogenation prong left. This likely indicates that the plutocrats believed that enough minority Alphas have been culled and killed, or that the lead-poisoning was inducing too much collateral damage in peasants which were not the targets of this campaign, such as big-money peasants working valuable jobs in the cities, who would still suffer due to lead poisoning from gasoline, but less so from the water.
Removing the lead, but keeping the estrogen has led to the rise of what people refer to as “Soy Culture”, in that men are still being estrogenized, now to an even greater extent due to the rise of soy and other blatantly estrogenic foods, but they lack sufficient lead poisoning to exhibit proxy-alpha traits such as recklessness, being quick to anger, a predisposition to violence, and a disregard for self-preservation.
This map shows a map of lead risks, which remains predominant in most major urban areas.
Despite lead continuing to effect most urban water supply, removing it from the gasoline alone has produced considerable reduction in volent crime. This evidences the necessity of a considerable amount of lead-poisoning to counter-act the dominance of estrogen as opposed to lead poisoning in regards to dictating the behavior of peasants.
The strong inverse correlation between the rise of Soy Culture and the decline of the violent crime rate and lead in gasoline evidences this argument. The success of the historical culling campaigns are evidenced by the reduced frequency and severity of riots led by White people.
If the 1/6 riot had happened prior to these culling, this likely would have resulted in a military coup as is frequently seen in 3rd world, where countries have populations of men that were not subjected to the aggressive culling campaigns and remain predisposed to the Alpha traits these campaigns were designed to minimize.
Modern Day Campaigns
The plutocrats are well informed of the threat posed by these Alpha traits in a community as evidenced by the history of White Peasant Uprisings as well as the more recent Black Uprisings. The plutocrats understand the threats being posed and are attempting to devise further campaigns due to a perceived necessity in order to ensure their own self-preservation.
The recent George Floyd riot, having nothing to do with lead-poisoning, is a worrying sign for the plutocrats. The Rodney King Riots in 1992 could be written off as caused by lead poisoning, but seeing a comparable riot take place in the Black community despite the minimized presence of lead poisoning means that the threat of uprising remains, and the plutocrats will attempt to further cull this population to avoid damage.
“White Boy Summer” as an Example
Recently, there was an attempted “movement” of “White Boy Summer” trying to encourage White men to reproduce with black women, which can be seen as an attempt to adulterate the genetics of the black community and make them less predisposed to this racialistic collectivism which is often seen in these riots. The logic being that mulattoes will be less prone to collectivizing with Blacks because they will not self-identify as Black, and that they will be less genetically predisposed to Alpha traits seen in the Black community which make them a threat to the plutocrats.
In all irony, this movement was spearheaded by Chet Hanks, the son of Tom Hanks who, in a very unfortunate failed attempt at humor, said “If you’re talking shit on the internet (about Tom Hanks), you’re going to be the first people sent to the FEMA camps”. This was in the wake of his father Tom Hanks being alleged to be involved with the death of Isaac Kappy on the internet, referencing the allegations made by Kappy revolving around Tom Hanks being involved some sort of pedophile ring, which preceded his death.
I’m not saying these allegations are true, I’m just saying they spurred this event. I’m not trying to say anyone is a bad person. If the government asked me to, I would have no problem euthanizing children with terminal illnesses, genetic defects, or predispositions to antisocial behavior. I’m not “crying about the children” here. I’m just saying that regardless of the intent of Chet Hanks, I would argue that the effect of a successful “White Boy Summer” campaign, is miscegenation, resulting in mulattoes which are likely genetically less so predisposed to traits that any reasonable owner of peasants would seek to minimize in his peasants.
There are many points discrediting Chet Hanks. The volatility, unreliability, and generally inappropriate behavior displayed by Chet Hanks indicates that he has minimal if any involvement in these plans, but clearly, he enjoys the fantasy of being involved, so the powers that be let him spearhead this minimum-investment campaign of “White Boy Summer”, which from my understanding is a largely failed and unpopular propaganda campaign.
Generally, if you’re suspected of committing a crime, “joking” about it is usually not the most reasonable strategy. It’s not like Dick Cheney went and published a book titled “If I did 9/11..” in the wake of allegations from 9/11 conspiracy theorists the way that OJ Simpson wrote the book “If I did it…” following his acquittal of murder charges. OJ is clearly a pop culture icon rather than a plutocrat, thus he is not threatening a powerful establishment by writing that book, he is just flaunting his power due to his popularity and likely in some desperate attempt to make some money.
Chet Hanks, however, given his inappropriate behavior and desire to “flex” his alleged involvement in this alleged group, clearly is not going to be given any sort of authority or access to meaningful information, hence why he just parrots common conspiracy theories in the video and foolishly believed that a sarcastic admission of guilt was “damage control” rather than self-harm.
Would I personally see miscegenation as a viable strategy? I would argue that it does work to some extent, but it is a very difficult campaign to execute. You are pushing the very heavy boulder of natural racial bias up a hill, and since most all humans naturally self-segregate, this becomes much more difficult due to expecting people to act outside of their behavior norms, rather than modify behaviors within them.
There is much more value in campaigns which harness the natural predispositions of peasants rather than try to fight against them and overpower them. Going with the flow of the river is always much easier than fighting against it, thus I would consider this campaign to be folly. The subtle tactics of the plutocrats are generally always going with the flow of peasant’s whims, or otherwise neutral such as airborne and waterborne lead pollution.
Due to the serious threat posed by the predisposition of the Black community to collective revolt, the plutocrats exist in a position where their hand is forced. It is impossible to content peasants until they overthrow the government and die due to their folly, so bargaining with these groups is a very short-term strategy and will do nothing to minimize indignation and discontent.
It is the subjective nature of contentment which ensures that this strategy will always fail, regardless of how many concessions you are willing to give the angry peasants. The peasants will never be happy, and any concession you give them will quickly be taken for granted, and they will start demand that you make more concessions. (Happiness article)
Giving out concessions to peasants until this causes the collapse of the state is a non-viable solution, despite having some ability to cull peasants during the civil unrest that follows. This is because America remains a major economic hub for the plutocrats, thus they have too much to lose by allowing social collapse, civil unrest, and potential anarchy.
With the rising threat of black collectivism, the hands of the plutocrats will be forced to engage in some sort of culling campaign to minimize the risk of further damage due to riots. This could take the shape of a race war, but the culling of the Whites generally makes them too meek and cowardly, thus reluctant to fight.
The media has been pushing this idea for the past 10 years, but this was originally to create conflict between peasants and have them attack each other, because 10 years ago they started attacking Wall Street, and the media and government don’t want that.
An explicit campaign such as a genocide would be far too disagreeable for most people, and since the White peasants will not start this race-war and subsequent genocide themselves due to their prior culling, this would rely upon a heavy investment in black-flag state-sponsored terrorists in an attempt to ignite racial tensions and inspire violence.
Even this is still a big gamble, because it is hard to know if the White race is even volatile to ignite when you apply the flame of state-sponsored black-flag terrorism in an attempt to inspire them to fight in a race war.
With explicit genocide off the table, with a race war likely inhibited due to the culling of the Whites making them unwilling to fight or even “protect themselves”, this reduces the government to alternative tactics. There are still alternatives, but they become more complicated and less efficient, much like the subtle two-pronged approach discussed earlier.
Modern Problems; Modern Solutions
In this technological age, I would expect some form of adulterant in food and water, because this has always been a very subtle and reliable means to this desired end, and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The only issue with using chemical adulterants in food is that it will cause considerable collateral damage to groups not being targeted by the culling.
There are substantial advantages to explicit violence, because this directly targets the most reckless, high-testosterone Alpha males. The decline in violent crime is likely worrying for the plutocrats, and there will need to be a reason to once again justify the use of violence as a means to economic well-being in the minds of the peasants.
One possible solution is an artificial economic collapse in which the peasants must “fight for their meals”, but again, doing so would place much pressure on the economic sector. All of these campaigns remain viable, but the ones chosen by the plutocrats depend on their willingness to commit to methods, they don’t want to make a scene, they prefer subtle tactics, but in the same right they know they are threatened and need to do something in order to avoid their own collapse and cannibalization at the hands of the peasants due to their inaction.
Can I predict the future? No. I am only analyzing the past and applying scientific reasoning to make hypotheses about the motivations and justifications of definitive aspects of the 20th century and how these may help us predict what may come in the future.
Do I care? Do I have a side? I am a meek peasant, I am loyal to whoever has a gun, I don’t question authority, I have no interest in personal gain, I have little interest in being alive, and generally have nothing to lose. I don’t have a side because I don’t care about any of this.
Are my arguments true? I doubt it. These arguments are what would motivate me personally to undertake these actions. If I were controlling the world, these would be my motivations for these things.
Are the plutocrats like me? Maybe a little bit, but they’re also a lot like you. They are animals, driven by instinct, they enjoy hedonism and pleasure, they want to avoid risk, they want to avoid work if they can do so without suffering economic damage, they care more about their own self-interest than the well-being of society, and generally only seek to preserve society as a means to the end of furthering their own self-interest.
I am a peasant and I’m blindly loyal to the flag and nation much like a dog to his master. The flag is my master and I fight to protect it. I argue these things because as a statist, I make arguments from the point of view of an authoritarian statist regime, which America is not. America a collective of plutocrats, of people working together because this is necessary to further their own economic self-interest.
The plutocratic state is a minimist state which solely arises from the necessity to form a government which protects the interest of the individual capitalists within it. They have little loyalty to the flag and the nation, and instead are loyal to money.
My arguments are generally rooted in sciences such as animal husbandry, psychology, and biology, and don’t take into account the other side of the coin. The minimist plutocratic state makes these investments in social orchestration for their own self-benefit, which means that large investments which provide minimal short-term yield are much less tempting for a plutocrat than a statist. The plutocratic government is a means to the end of economic gain.
The statist seeks to ensure the long-term health, stability, and viability of the nation. For the statist, economic policy is used as a means to an end to ensure the power and stability of the state.