Sometime as a young adult I figured out that life was simpler if one took accountability for one’s actions. Less drama, fewer complications, better relationships. Life works better if one gets along with neighbors, co-workers, in-laws, regardless of their political views, lifestyle, social values. I’d this ethics or altruism? To the larger issue of political effectiveness, it has always been the strategy of the rulers to divide and conquer. I despair as I see the capacity to hate in people I love and care for.
Well, you have to remember that half the population is of below average intelligence, by definition, and the percentage of the more intelligent gets smaller as you go higher. Not that 'intelligence' as commonly measured is the be-all and end-all, but other qualities such as common sense and astuteness presumably follow the same trajectory. Qualities such as compassion - I'm not sure about. Has anyone tried a measure, with correlations?
There is one challenge to having a set of universal moral norms: different societies do have different requirements of their members. What's more, these demands are deliberately artificial and enforced: the distrust of the "strangers" is a universal phenomenon in any society and following the norms to the letter, which may be needlessly demanding, is a price demanded of the apparent "strangers" that they ought to be trusted. So the Jews and nonconformists in the Medieval Europe were permanently distrusted outsiders, Trajan thought that the Christians who insisted on foregoing emperor worship should be executed, the Japanese who didn't step on the fumi-e and the Chinese and Koreans who didn't participate in "Confucian" rituals had their heads lopped off and all that (and many of these were not even "strangers" per se.)
This is not really a problem if societies are small and relatively isolated, with the handful of strangers who come by really do have a strong incentive to fit in for whatever reason. But not in a large and diverse society where pretty much everyone is a "stranger." The more historical approach to ethics in such instances (e.g. the Ottoman Empire and, to a large degree, Imperial China, and, I'd even argue, United States until recently) was that each constituent community in a complex society had their own rules of ethics and that representatives from various communities would negotiate the terms under which they would coexist and, where applicable, settle the disputes. There is a wonderful quote, ironically from a leading American academic international relations theorist, drawn from his own upbringing, that describes this phenomenon:
I grew up in a Jewish section of Flatbush that bordered an
Italian neighborhood. Sometimes on our way to school,
some Italian kids-nearly all of them went to parochial
schools-would hassle and even attack us. Although they
lived only a few blocks away, we didn't even know their
names. We just called them "the St. Brennan's kids." Our
parents would see our injuries and report the incidents to
our school principal, who was Jewish, but from a different
neighborhood. He contacted the relevant authorities at St.
Brennan's, who would investigate the matter and punish the
culprits. The funny thing was, no one ever seemed to think
of calling the police. They were Irish.
But the temptation of the modern Liberal is to create universal norms that crush these communities and their own little rules underfoot. So the Irish cops have to intervene in matters between the Italian and Jewish kids and all that, using rules alien to all of them. It might be acceptable if these norms are confined to only the matters of common decency that everyone can agree on (But how common are these, really? We might all say that murder is not moral in principle...but there are many societies where there are "buts" and "excepts" attached.), but the "universal norms" that the modern Liberal demands are increasingly getting narrower.
"the distrust of the "strangers" is a universal phenomenon in any society"
That is only one side of the picture. There is another, contrasting view, that travellers, traders, roving smiths, etc were welcomed for bringing news, technical innovations and new fashions into settled communities. These two positions have always existed in tension, and it is not a question of one or the other being uppermost, most of the time.
That is true, although one should draw the distinction between "strangers who live amongst 'us'" vs. visitors (probably with known business) who won't be staying. "Travellers" who were just passing through were rarely burned. Rather, it's the "strangers" who live near "us" who were subjected to pogroms and such.
This is one of the most important pieces I've read that explains why we in the West find ourselves not just at the edge, but deep at the bedrock of a yawning abyss, neck-deep in thick shit. When I call on my elite bubble dwelling friends, family, and colleagues to set aside our differences, to organize around the common good, to understand the root causes of our predicament and find a way out, they get angry, shout me down, mock me, and furiously lash out as if the public interest were the enemy: "Why are you interfering? Get to work! Can’t you see we’re trying to build a house?"
"I wonder sometimes whether some evil spirit from another dimension didn’t organise Covid as a kind of experiment: a stress test to see which societies and political systems would be capable of responding properly, and comparing results. And of course the results make extremely sobering reading: why did Vietnam do so much better than the United States, for example?"
I can tell you why - because the elites in the US Are seen as entirely self-serving.
This is one of the saddest, most melancholy pieces I've read in a long while. The fundamental decency of normal human beings is being stamped on by the cupidity of the weak and foolish. When the circle turns, as it will, I hope there is not too much blood, and that I will not be alive to see it. I fear for our children.
Some of what allows us to function in groups is our biology and anthropology as social animals -- it's sort of hard-wired in our mirror neurons, emotional signals and thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to allow human groups to survive and manage the "free rider" problem (which I argue manifests itself in psychopathy and sociopathy). We're pack animals -- by which I mean like wolves rather than donkeys.
But this baseline is only sufficient in small groups. For humans to cooperate above the band level requires codification of behaviours, and then an intergenerational mechanism of transfer for them to persist -- which is to say, religion; it's no accident that there have never been any civilizations without religion. And the more inclusive the religion, the larger the group cooperation possible thereunder (hence the success of the "universal religions" over the narrower, tribal varieties from whence they sprang).
But "liberals" are too smart for all this, eh? And so we get the radical atomization of neoliberalism -- a solvent which dissolves almost all human relations in favour of the purely transactional "homo economicus." And with no public, how can there be public goods?
Talk to anyone under 30 about conscription and they are likely to smile sweetly and tell you it would not be economically rational to sign up, at least in the UK. As Aurelian lays out, you can't marinade several generation of citizens in extreme individualism and expect the 'patriotism' lever to still be connected to anything.
Given the lack of popular support for war here why have the European elites developed a hard on for military action all of a sudden?
I take that the hypothetical questions Aurelien posed to his masters students were asked before COVID.
I am daily slack jawed at the callous disregard for the health of children. There is an abundance of research confirming the danger conferred by COVID infection on the future well-being of those infected. This includes children! To me, tossing out any concept of caution with regards to infection control is barbaric. People will suffer a drastically lower quality of life over a shorter span. Again, that includes children.
So to the stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the middle of night query, how about this: donning an effective respirator in indoor public spaces despite believing yourself to be infection free?
We in the West have a grave problem, responsible government (so it claims) takes no responsibility for the welfare of those it governs.
On the other hand, some people (mostly from the right, but not exclusively) would argue that today's society is the most moralistic, in a black-and-white way, ever. At least in the public discourse one has morals where common sense used to be. It revolves around certain cults. Cult of a minority, cult of a victim, cult of an oppressed. While able adult majority men (and often women) are constantly vilified, belittled and shamed. At some point they simply have enough, and 'what's in it for me' becomes the only way to go.
"..any capability for western nations to physically rearm and expand their defence forces."
Not physically capable indeed....not mentally or socially capable either.
.
*77% of young Americans too fat, mentally ill, on drugs and more to join military, Pentagon study finds*
"A Pentagon study revealed that 77 percent of young Americans do not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, drug use, or mental or physical problems.
“When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11 percent), drug and alcohol abuse (8 percent), and medical/physical health (7 percent),” the Pentagon’s 2020 Qualified Military Available Study of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 read.
Several key findings were noted in the summary of the report. For example, most ineligible youth (44 percent) are disqualified for multiple reasons rather than in only one area.
Among those ineligible for only one reason, being overweight was the highest disqualification, at 11 percent. Drug use (8 percent), medical/physical only (7 percent) and mental health only (4 percent) were the other leading categories found in the study.
The largest increases in disqualification estimates observed between 2013 and 2020 were for mental health and overweight conditions. Another key finding was that the proportion of youth both eligible and not currently enrolled in college was only 12 percent."
If the US empire went to war with Russia today, the Russians would eat them for breakfast.
I suspect it would be the same against the Chinese, but I have yet to see them fight. They certainly have the hardware.
I know some families, blue collar families, that are lightly patriarchal and even in my own family there are things that the women cede to men, like repairing the car, because it's 'guy stuff'. My mother and sister still come to me to do their taxes -math is guy stuff too and so is troubleshooting any hardware or network or software issues with their computers. I'm gen-x and growing up my parents were strict on manners under all situations. Everybody counts. I can't even help myself. I still hold doors open for all people and pick up something they dropped and 'may I', 'please' & 'thank you'. I have got a few dirty looks from young women when holding a door. Sometimes I feel like I come from a different world.
You certainly do 'come from a different world.' These days, Maths are women's domain in school, while the men have difficulty telling their arses from their elbows - if they can get unglued from a screen long enough to try.
Yes Jam the women have proven themselves to be the equal of men at leading the imperial slaughter.
~~
*4 of the top 5 US defense firms to be led by women*
Kathy Warden is set to take the help of Northrup Gunman.
"At the start of 2019, four of America's top defense companies will be led by women.
On Thursday, the chairman and CEO of Northrop Grumman, Wes Bush, announced that he was stepping down and would be succeeded by Kathy Warden, Northrop's current president and chief operating officer who has been with the company since 2008."
What a proud moment for feminism. Indeed they can do any banal evil the men can.
.
In the 20th century there's a ratio for every solider that was killed approximately 10 civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children - what the MIC calls collateral damage. Way to put those math skills to use girls.
I hope it was worth all the struggle to get all those degrees and days of power, but it looks like the tide of history is turning and the right wing fascists are coming back into power to rule whatever is left of civilization after runaway climate change and the other Overshoot predicaments and consequences tear the human built world to pieces. The fight for clean water and shrinking arable land will likely trigger nuclear war
~~~~~
*Nuclear Infrastructure and Radioactive Threats in a Post-Collapse World*
"Silent Sentinels of Doom: The Nuclear Plants That Will Outlive Us
Humanity’s nuclear legacy stands as one of the most dangerous and long-lasting threats to our species’ survival in a collapsing world. With 440 operational reactors, 223 permanently shuttered reactors, and over 435,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste stored in vulnerable facilities worldwide (IAEA, 2023), we have created a radioactive sword of Damocles that hangs over future generations. As climate chaos destabilizes institutions and infrastructure, these nuclear sites risk catastrophic failure that could render vast regions uninhabitable for centuries, compounding the existential threats of biodiversity collapse and climate feedback loops. Recent studies from 2024-2025 reveal even greater risks than previously understood, from climate-vulnerable coastal reactors to Russia’s dangerous floating nuclear plants and new evidence about the precarious state of Chernobyl’s containment.
Coastal Reactors: Drowning in a Warming World
The siting of nuclear reactors has created what experts now recognize as one of the most serious climate vulnerabilities of the 21st century. Over 40% of the world’s reactors lie within 30 km of coastlines, exposing them to storm surges and sea-level rise that are accelerating beyond previous projections. Independent studies estimate that approximately 20% of coastal nuclear reactors worldwide could face ‘high’ or ‘very high’ inundation risks by 2100 due to climate change (Reed et al., 2019), with the U.S. alone having 34 of 65 coastal sites vulnerable to flooding (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011). Recent studies project that 24–52% of coastal reactors globally could face high flood risks by mid-century (Smirnov et al. 2022; Jenkins and Tuler 2023), with the IAEA identifying 40+ priority sites (IAEA 2023). As of 2024, over 60% of reactors are now operating beyond their original 30-year lifespans, with dozens pushing 40+ years of operation, creating a perfect storm of deferred decommissioning and mounting safety risks. In a world teetering on collapse, the glacial pace of nuclear decommissioning—stretching 30 to 100 years for a single reactor—creates a dangerous paradox: humanity’s most fragile institutions now guard its most persistent hazards, as radioactive husks outlast the civilization that built them.
A 2023 study in Energy and Environmental Science projects that under RCP8.5 (high-emissions) climate scenarios, 38–45 coastal reactors (8–10% of the global fleet) will face Category 4+ tropical cyclone risks by 2070—exceeding original design standards in 22 cases (Schmidt et al., 2023). These findings build on the hard lessons of Fukushima, where in 2011 a tsunami overwhelmed defenses and caused triple meltdowns that released 520 petabecquerels (PBq) of radiation (NAS, 2014). In a post-collapse world where maintenance and disaster response have ceased, similar accidents would occur with terrifying frequency, each one poisoning groundwater and marine ecosystems with long-lived isotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90 that remain dangerous for centuries.
The threat extends beyond simple flooding. Prolonged heatwaves and droughts – already forcing reactor shutdowns in France during their 2022 heat emergency when Rhône River temperatures became too warm for cooling (UNECE, 2019) – will become more severe and frequent. Without grid power or active cooling in a collapsed society, spent nuclear fuel pools could boil dry within 7–10 days, exposing radioactive fuel rods. Without water, temperatures rise rapidly, exceeding 500–1,000°C, damaging the zirconium cladding. Zirconium burns at 900°C+, especially in air (even more aggressively than in steam). Under such a scenario, studies project cesium-137 releases of up to 100× the Hiroshima bomb—potentially contaminating thousands of square kilometers (Princeton University, 2024; NRC, 2022). These fires would create radioactive plumes that could contaminate entire regions downwind, rendering them uninhabitable for generations.
Once upon a time, there was a grasshopper who was always happy.
He loved his life of leisure.
He sat in the sun playing his fiddle and picking succulent leaves off the nearest plant to eat.
Life was very good.
Sometimes, the grasshopper would watch a convoy of ants carrying their burdens.
The ants were always working.
The grasshopper didn’t understand.
One day he stops an ant carrying a kernel of corn. “Mr. Ant, why are you always working so hard? Why don’t you stop and just enjoy this beautiful life?”
The ant stares at the grasshopper in disbelief. “We have to work. We are storing up food for the coming winter.”
The grasshopper stares at the ant, perplexed. “Winter? What is winter?”
The ant explains “Winter is a time when the earth is sleeping and there is no food.”
The grasshopper laughs, “Look around you. Winter is a myth to frighten children. There is no winter.”
The End.
The above is the version of an ancient parable written from the point of view of the grasshopper who follows the individualistic moral philosophy of the West. The traditional version of the parable, in which a freezing grasshopper begs the ants for food, is written from the point of view of a traditional Calvinist, Protestant Ethic.
I would argue that both versions are morally right from the point of view of their respective moral philosophies. Consequently, it would be impossible for one side to convince the other side that they are acting inappropriately.
Isn’t the grasshopper right? He lives his entire life in the heady sunshine of summer. The end. For him there are no horrors of huddling in burrows wondering if the food will last.
How can you convince someone who is focused on his own individual happiness that there is more to life? How can you convince someone whose eyes are blissfully closed that there is a world outside of him? How can you tell someone who is only focused on his personal happiness that children are our only inheritance? You cannot.
Doesn’t this observation point to the ultimate solution? Those who look to the future will have a future, those who do not, will not. Both may be satisfied with their chosen path but one path will be short and the other long.
The West is trying to stop history and live in an endless summer of happy consumption. History ignores this aberration and continues to unfold.
The moral philosophy of the West is one of feasting without regard to consequences. It is like a raging forest fire devouring everything in its path. But forest fires run their course and among the smoking charred logs, green shoots emerge.
This all tracks very well with the almost deliberate whitewashing of John Dewey and his ethical teachings from the American canon and subsequent replacement with Friedman, Strauss and Rand as our intellectual and moral icons.
Dewey's essays on Democracy and Freedom after his retirement from Columbia University are a great resource to anyone who wants to really understand how to 'defend' democracy. In short, the individual and society are in a self reinforcing feedback loop.
Yeah. You haven't caught up yet. 'Democracy' is a failed system. Ignore W. Churchill and his propaganda. Our 'democracy' is just a screen for rule by the rich and influential, and it can never be anything else. The only way to get a fair system is through 'sortition' - which is the kind of democracy which was at its height in Athens. What we fondly call democracy would be labelled oligarchy in ancient Athens. Of course, there are problems adapting it to large populations, but they are not insoluble. All we need is the will and necessary circumstances. Whether they will ever come along is another matter, but industrial society is on a very sticky wicket. Within 50 years oil production and therefore mineral extraction will fall steeply, pollution and global warming will accelerate and populations will keep rising till they fall off a cliff. That might be the time.
The mask-refusal among people was when I understood that the West has a civilizational problem. Rumours have it that in Japan and China you wear a mask when you have a cold to not infect others. Here you wouldn‘t even though people died left and right.
Also, the German government implemented stupid things that did nothing to stop the syndemic such as forbidding people to meet with friends after 22:00 but not before. Also, these „precautions“ were implemented only when there was an 100+ incidence not to stop the incidence from growing or make it shrink. I then also understood that the governments of the West really want to lill us. What is it called when you let a deadly virus rage around? It is called biological warfare. Now they are increasing poverty through higher energy prices and greedflation with long-term deadly health effects as a consequence.
Encouraging stuff about the communists in Auschwitz though.
Sometime as a young adult I figured out that life was simpler if one took accountability for one’s actions. Less drama, fewer complications, better relationships. Life works better if one gets along with neighbors, co-workers, in-laws, regardless of their political views, lifestyle, social values. I’d this ethics or altruism? To the larger issue of political effectiveness, it has always been the strategy of the rulers to divide and conquer. I despair as I see the capacity to hate in people I love and care for.
Well, you have to remember that half the population is of below average intelligence, by definition, and the percentage of the more intelligent gets smaller as you go higher. Not that 'intelligence' as commonly measured is the be-all and end-all, but other qualities such as common sense and astuteness presumably follow the same trajectory. Qualities such as compassion - I'm not sure about. Has anyone tried a measure, with correlations?
There is one challenge to having a set of universal moral norms: different societies do have different requirements of their members. What's more, these demands are deliberately artificial and enforced: the distrust of the "strangers" is a universal phenomenon in any society and following the norms to the letter, which may be needlessly demanding, is a price demanded of the apparent "strangers" that they ought to be trusted. So the Jews and nonconformists in the Medieval Europe were permanently distrusted outsiders, Trajan thought that the Christians who insisted on foregoing emperor worship should be executed, the Japanese who didn't step on the fumi-e and the Chinese and Koreans who didn't participate in "Confucian" rituals had their heads lopped off and all that (and many of these were not even "strangers" per se.)
This is not really a problem if societies are small and relatively isolated, with the handful of strangers who come by really do have a strong incentive to fit in for whatever reason. But not in a large and diverse society where pretty much everyone is a "stranger." The more historical approach to ethics in such instances (e.g. the Ottoman Empire and, to a large degree, Imperial China, and, I'd even argue, United States until recently) was that each constituent community in a complex society had their own rules of ethics and that representatives from various communities would negotiate the terms under which they would coexist and, where applicable, settle the disputes. There is a wonderful quote, ironically from a leading American academic international relations theorist, drawn from his own upbringing, that describes this phenomenon:
I grew up in a Jewish section of Flatbush that bordered an
Italian neighborhood. Sometimes on our way to school,
some Italian kids-nearly all of them went to parochial
schools-would hassle and even attack us. Although they
lived only a few blocks away, we didn't even know their
names. We just called them "the St. Brennan's kids." Our
parents would see our injuries and report the incidents to
our school principal, who was Jewish, but from a different
neighborhood. He contacted the relevant authorities at St.
Brennan's, who would investigate the matter and punish the
culprits. The funny thing was, no one ever seemed to think
of calling the police. They were Irish.
But the temptation of the modern Liberal is to create universal norms that crush these communities and their own little rules underfoot. So the Irish cops have to intervene in matters between the Italian and Jewish kids and all that, using rules alien to all of them. It might be acceptable if these norms are confined to only the matters of common decency that everyone can agree on (But how common are these, really? We might all say that murder is not moral in principle...but there are many societies where there are "buts" and "excepts" attached.), but the "universal norms" that the modern Liberal demands are increasingly getting narrower.
"the distrust of the "strangers" is a universal phenomenon in any society"
That is only one side of the picture. There is another, contrasting view, that travellers, traders, roving smiths, etc were welcomed for bringing news, technical innovations and new fashions into settled communities. These two positions have always existed in tension, and it is not a question of one or the other being uppermost, most of the time.
That is true, although one should draw the distinction between "strangers who live amongst 'us'" vs. visitors (probably with known business) who won't be staying. "Travellers" who were just passing through were rarely burned. Rather, it's the "strangers" who live near "us" who were subjected to pogroms and such.
Thank you for such an eloquent post.
Very apt and reflecting my concern and unease regarding our societies and rulers.
Keep up the good work.
This is one of the most important pieces I've read that explains why we in the West find ourselves not just at the edge, but deep at the bedrock of a yawning abyss, neck-deep in thick shit. When I call on my elite bubble dwelling friends, family, and colleagues to set aside our differences, to organize around the common good, to understand the root causes of our predicament and find a way out, they get angry, shout me down, mock me, and furiously lash out as if the public interest were the enemy: "Why are you interfering? Get to work! Can’t you see we’re trying to build a house?"
"I wonder sometimes whether some evil spirit from another dimension didn’t organise Covid as a kind of experiment: a stress test to see which societies and political systems would be capable of responding properly, and comparing results. And of course the results make extremely sobering reading: why did Vietnam do so much better than the United States, for example?"
I can tell you why - because the elites in the US Are seen as entirely self-serving.
This is one of the saddest, most melancholy pieces I've read in a long while. The fundamental decency of normal human beings is being stamped on by the cupidity of the weak and foolish. When the circle turns, as it will, I hope there is not too much blood, and that I will not be alive to see it. I fear for our children.
Some of what allows us to function in groups is our biology and anthropology as social animals -- it's sort of hard-wired in our mirror neurons, emotional signals and thousands upon thousands of years of evolution to allow human groups to survive and manage the "free rider" problem (which I argue manifests itself in psychopathy and sociopathy). We're pack animals -- by which I mean like wolves rather than donkeys.
But this baseline is only sufficient in small groups. For humans to cooperate above the band level requires codification of behaviours, and then an intergenerational mechanism of transfer for them to persist -- which is to say, religion; it's no accident that there have never been any civilizations without religion. And the more inclusive the religion, the larger the group cooperation possible thereunder (hence the success of the "universal religions" over the narrower, tribal varieties from whence they sprang).
But "liberals" are too smart for all this, eh? And so we get the radical atomization of neoliberalism -- a solvent which dissolves almost all human relations in favour of the purely transactional "homo economicus." And with no public, how can there be public goods?
And so we collapse back into barbarism ...
You were right with the 'donkeys' - we are in the main 'herd' animals. The evidence is all around.
Talk to anyone under 30 about conscription and they are likely to smile sweetly and tell you it would not be economically rational to sign up, at least in the UK. As Aurelian lays out, you can't marinade several generation of citizens in extreme individualism and expect the 'patriotism' lever to still be connected to anything.
Given the lack of popular support for war here why have the European elites developed a hard on for military action all of a sudden?
Weak and unpopular rulers love starting wars.
Besides the "rally 'round the flag" effect, wars give the rulers an excuse to crack down on dissent and to put off unpopular discussions.
This is why Hemingway famously described war and inflation as two favorite responses to a mismanaged society.
"Given the lack of popular support for war here why have the European elites developed a hard on for military action all of a sudden?"
Being up Sh*** Creek without the necessary paddle will have that effect.
I take that the hypothetical questions Aurelien posed to his masters students were asked before COVID.
I am daily slack jawed at the callous disregard for the health of children. There is an abundance of research confirming the danger conferred by COVID infection on the future well-being of those infected. This includes children! To me, tossing out any concept of caution with regards to infection control is barbaric. People will suffer a drastically lower quality of life over a shorter span. Again, that includes children.
So to the stop sign in the middle of nowhere in the middle of night query, how about this: donning an effective respirator in indoor public spaces despite believing yourself to be infection free?
We in the West have a grave problem, responsible government (so it claims) takes no responsibility for the welfare of those it governs.
That's what the populace gets for being fooled into voting for 'liberal' values, discarding their history and wallowing in material 'wealth'.
"The Great Barrington Declaration" and its shills will have much to answer for ...
Great essay , thank you .
I have thought for a few decades that when/if the next revolutionary wave comes the battle cry will be " hang the Liberals " .
On the other hand, some people (mostly from the right, but not exclusively) would argue that today's society is the most moralistic, in a black-and-white way, ever. At least in the public discourse one has morals where common sense used to be. It revolves around certain cults. Cult of a minority, cult of a victim, cult of an oppressed. While able adult majority men (and often women) are constantly vilified, belittled and shamed. At some point they simply have enough, and 'what's in it for me' becomes the only way to go.
re George Orwell: today, mentioning 1984 is on EU anti disinformation ngos lists of items with which to 'identify conspiracy theorists'...
"..any capability for western nations to physically rearm and expand their defence forces."
Not physically capable indeed....not mentally or socially capable either.
.
*77% of young Americans too fat, mentally ill, on drugs and more to join military, Pentagon study finds*
"A Pentagon study revealed that 77 percent of young Americans do not qualify for military service without a waiver due to being overweight, drug use, or mental or physical problems.
“When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11 percent), drug and alcohol abuse (8 percent), and medical/physical health (7 percent),” the Pentagon’s 2020 Qualified Military Available Study of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 read.
Several key findings were noted in the summary of the report. For example, most ineligible youth (44 percent) are disqualified for multiple reasons rather than in only one area.
Among those ineligible for only one reason, being overweight was the highest disqualification, at 11 percent. Drug use (8 percent), medical/physical only (7 percent) and mental health only (4 percent) were the other leading categories found in the study.
The largest increases in disqualification estimates observed between 2013 and 2020 were for mental health and overweight conditions. Another key finding was that the proportion of youth both eligible and not currently enrolled in college was only 12 percent."
.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/03/77-of-young-americans-too-fat-mentally-ill-on-drugs-and-more-to-join-military-pentagon-study-finds/
~~
If the US empire went to war with Russia today, the Russians would eat them for breakfast.
I suspect it would be the same against the Chinese, but I have yet to see them fight. They certainly have the hardware.
I know some families, blue collar families, that are lightly patriarchal and even in my own family there are things that the women cede to men, like repairing the car, because it's 'guy stuff'. My mother and sister still come to me to do their taxes -math is guy stuff too and so is troubleshooting any hardware or network or software issues with their computers. I'm gen-x and growing up my parents were strict on manners under all situations. Everybody counts. I can't even help myself. I still hold doors open for all people and pick up something they dropped and 'may I', 'please' & 'thank you'. I have got a few dirty looks from young women when holding a door. Sometimes I feel like I come from a different world.
You certainly do 'come from a different world.' These days, Maths are women's domain in school, while the men have difficulty telling their arses from their elbows - if they can get unglued from a screen long enough to try.
Yes Jam the women have proven themselves to be the equal of men at leading the imperial slaughter.
~~
*4 of the top 5 US defense firms to be led by women*
Kathy Warden is set to take the help of Northrup Gunman.
"At the start of 2019, four of America's top defense companies will be led by women.
On Thursday, the chairman and CEO of Northrop Grumman, Wes Bush, announced that he was stepping down and would be succeeded by Kathy Warden, Northrop's current president and chief operating officer who has been with the company since 2008."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-us-defense-firms-led-women/story?id=56564622
.
What a proud moment for feminism. Indeed they can do any banal evil the men can.
.
In the 20th century there's a ratio for every solider that was killed approximately 10 civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children - what the MIC calls collateral damage. Way to put those math skills to use girls.
I hope it was worth all the struggle to get all those degrees and days of power, but it looks like the tide of history is turning and the right wing fascists are coming back into power to rule whatever is left of civilization after runaway climate change and the other Overshoot predicaments and consequences tear the human built world to pieces. The fight for clean water and shrinking arable land will likely trigger nuclear war
~~~~~
*Nuclear Infrastructure and Radioactive Threats in a Post-Collapse World*
"Silent Sentinels of Doom: The Nuclear Plants That Will Outlive Us
Humanity’s nuclear legacy stands as one of the most dangerous and long-lasting threats to our species’ survival in a collapsing world. With 440 operational reactors, 223 permanently shuttered reactors, and over 435,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste stored in vulnerable facilities worldwide (IAEA, 2023), we have created a radioactive sword of Damocles that hangs over future generations. As climate chaos destabilizes institutions and infrastructure, these nuclear sites risk catastrophic failure that could render vast regions uninhabitable for centuries, compounding the existential threats of biodiversity collapse and climate feedback loops. Recent studies from 2024-2025 reveal even greater risks than previously understood, from climate-vulnerable coastal reactors to Russia’s dangerous floating nuclear plants and new evidence about the precarious state of Chernobyl’s containment.
Coastal Reactors: Drowning in a Warming World
The siting of nuclear reactors has created what experts now recognize as one of the most serious climate vulnerabilities of the 21st century. Over 40% of the world’s reactors lie within 30 km of coastlines, exposing them to storm surges and sea-level rise that are accelerating beyond previous projections. Independent studies estimate that approximately 20% of coastal nuclear reactors worldwide could face ‘high’ or ‘very high’ inundation risks by 2100 due to climate change (Reed et al., 2019), with the U.S. alone having 34 of 65 coastal sites vulnerable to flooding (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011). Recent studies project that 24–52% of coastal reactors globally could face high flood risks by mid-century (Smirnov et al. 2022; Jenkins and Tuler 2023), with the IAEA identifying 40+ priority sites (IAEA 2023). As of 2024, over 60% of reactors are now operating beyond their original 30-year lifespans, with dozens pushing 40+ years of operation, creating a perfect storm of deferred decommissioning and mounting safety risks. In a world teetering on collapse, the glacial pace of nuclear decommissioning—stretching 30 to 100 years for a single reactor—creates a dangerous paradox: humanity’s most fragile institutions now guard its most persistent hazards, as radioactive husks outlast the civilization that built them.
A 2023 study in Energy and Environmental Science projects that under RCP8.5 (high-emissions) climate scenarios, 38–45 coastal reactors (8–10% of the global fleet) will face Category 4+ tropical cyclone risks by 2070—exceeding original design standards in 22 cases (Schmidt et al., 2023). These findings build on the hard lessons of Fukushima, where in 2011 a tsunami overwhelmed defenses and caused triple meltdowns that released 520 petabecquerels (PBq) of radiation (NAS, 2014). In a post-collapse world where maintenance and disaster response have ceased, similar accidents would occur with terrifying frequency, each one poisoning groundwater and marine ecosystems with long-lived isotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90 that remain dangerous for centuries.
The threat extends beyond simple flooding. Prolonged heatwaves and droughts – already forcing reactor shutdowns in France during their 2022 heat emergency when Rhône River temperatures became too warm for cooling (UNECE, 2019) – will become more severe and frequent. Without grid power or active cooling in a collapsed society, spent nuclear fuel pools could boil dry within 7–10 days, exposing radioactive fuel rods. Without water, temperatures rise rapidly, exceeding 500–1,000°C, damaging the zirconium cladding. Zirconium burns at 900°C+, especially in air (even more aggressively than in steam). Under such a scenario, studies project cesium-137 releases of up to 100× the Hiroshima bomb—potentially contaminating thousands of square kilometers (Princeton University, 2024; NRC, 2022). These fires would create radioactive plumes that could contaminate entire regions downwind, rendering them uninhabitable for generations.
Floating Nuclear Reactors: Russia’s Dangerous Experiment"
https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.com/2025/04/01/nuclear-infrastructure-and-radioactive-threats-in-a-post-collapse-world/
Sir:
I offer a parable:
Once upon a time, there was a grasshopper who was always happy.
He loved his life of leisure.
He sat in the sun playing his fiddle and picking succulent leaves off the nearest plant to eat.
Life was very good.
Sometimes, the grasshopper would watch a convoy of ants carrying their burdens.
The ants were always working.
The grasshopper didn’t understand.
One day he stops an ant carrying a kernel of corn. “Mr. Ant, why are you always working so hard? Why don’t you stop and just enjoy this beautiful life?”
The ant stares at the grasshopper in disbelief. “We have to work. We are storing up food for the coming winter.”
The grasshopper stares at the ant, perplexed. “Winter? What is winter?”
The ant explains “Winter is a time when the earth is sleeping and there is no food.”
The grasshopper laughs, “Look around you. Winter is a myth to frighten children. There is no winter.”
The End.
The above is the version of an ancient parable written from the point of view of the grasshopper who follows the individualistic moral philosophy of the West. The traditional version of the parable, in which a freezing grasshopper begs the ants for food, is written from the point of view of a traditional Calvinist, Protestant Ethic.
I would argue that both versions are morally right from the point of view of their respective moral philosophies. Consequently, it would be impossible for one side to convince the other side that they are acting inappropriately.
Isn’t the grasshopper right? He lives his entire life in the heady sunshine of summer. The end. For him there are no horrors of huddling in burrows wondering if the food will last.
How can you convince someone who is focused on his own individual happiness that there is more to life? How can you convince someone whose eyes are blissfully closed that there is a world outside of him? How can you tell someone who is only focused on his personal happiness that children are our only inheritance? You cannot.
Doesn’t this observation point to the ultimate solution? Those who look to the future will have a future, those who do not, will not. Both may be satisfied with their chosen path but one path will be short and the other long.
The West is trying to stop history and live in an endless summer of happy consumption. History ignores this aberration and continues to unfold.
The moral philosophy of the West is one of feasting without regard to consequences. It is like a raging forest fire devouring everything in its path. But forest fires run their course and among the smoking charred logs, green shoots emerge.
Don’t the Moirai always have the last laugh?
Well, Karma will catch up, in all cases.
This all tracks very well with the almost deliberate whitewashing of John Dewey and his ethical teachings from the American canon and subsequent replacement with Friedman, Strauss and Rand as our intellectual and moral icons.
Dewey's essays on Democracy and Freedom after his retirement from Columbia University are a great resource to anyone who wants to really understand how to 'defend' democracy. In short, the individual and society are in a self reinforcing feedback loop.
Yeah. You haven't caught up yet. 'Democracy' is a failed system. Ignore W. Churchill and his propaganda. Our 'democracy' is just a screen for rule by the rich and influential, and it can never be anything else. The only way to get a fair system is through 'sortition' - which is the kind of democracy which was at its height in Athens. What we fondly call democracy would be labelled oligarchy in ancient Athens. Of course, there are problems adapting it to large populations, but they are not insoluble. All we need is the will and necessary circumstances. Whether they will ever come along is another matter, but industrial society is on a very sticky wicket. Within 50 years oil production and therefore mineral extraction will fall steeply, pollution and global warming will accelerate and populations will keep rising till they fall off a cliff. That might be the time.
The mask-refusal among people was when I understood that the West has a civilizational problem. Rumours have it that in Japan and China you wear a mask when you have a cold to not infect others. Here you wouldn‘t even though people died left and right.
Also, the German government implemented stupid things that did nothing to stop the syndemic such as forbidding people to meet with friends after 22:00 but not before. Also, these „precautions“ were implemented only when there was an 100+ incidence not to stop the incidence from growing or make it shrink. I then also understood that the governments of the West really want to lill us. What is it called when you let a deadly virus rage around? It is called biological warfare. Now they are increasing poverty through higher energy prices and greedflation with long-term deadly health effects as a consequence.
Encouraging stuff about the communists in Auschwitz though.
https://www.n-tv.de/ratgeber/Was-ist-erlaubt-und-was-verboten-article22511485.html