The following is the 20th e-mail message I received from Brian Harner, and the 36th message of our conversation. It was sent on September 9 2020 at 1:46AM EST.
"Is it possible to simplify all the issues with veganism into one, which is scale?"
Scale itself can only be accomplished if the environment, including the entire planet's biosphere, can maintain an atmospheric loop cycle. Carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen especially. What building a pyramid as your domicilie does just from practical standpoint, is triple the foot space. Vegetables, fruits, and various other plants will grow all over it, if you design it that way. Being a Vegan when that has already taken place on a large enough scale that you can feel comfortable and safe from theft or war... is a strong possibility. There is a lot that needs to occur in order for that reality to start taking shape. As I've said prior, being a Vegan in today's society is only possible from a heavily subsidized crude oil economy. The amount of produce that flies all over the world and/or gets shipped on a boat, transported to the holding facility, shipped to a distributor, then shipped from the distributor to the grocery store. But wait, there's more... Then the buyer of the produce has to drive their vehicle to and from work, then to and from the grocery store. Unless there is an onboard aquaponics system in place that is run on pure solar, off grid, that can maintain light variations to keep the vegetables growing all year round, every single Vegan NEEDS the crude oil economy to function. When it comes to a community, absolutely not.
No matter what happens to the societal complex on Earth, outlaws will exist for quite some time. People that will try to destroy you in all manner of ways. Maybe even just for fun. There's some sick people out there, that's just the harsh truth. Some of them are not easy to see, as I've proven several times just on this journey alone. Creating one of these communities must take the utmost scrutiny. Hence, the constant harping on purity and selflessness. Within a tight community where awkward boundaries of racial disparity are constant, there is a view of individualism. Removing that immediate stigma only has "1" route, and that is self segregation. Not forced. This is what everyone chooses to do of their own volition. With a strong possibility of that scenario NOT likely... self defense, stamina, and an opportunistic diet with a diverse menu will be important. Have you seen that show Alone? I watched it recently and the contestants that were Vegans HAD TO eat meat to survive. It would be very difficult to build, cultivate, harvest, and protect an organic Vegan community at any scale... without a significant amount of crude oil, solar energy, wind, etc to subsidize. At very least there would be a milk cow right? Butter, cream, milk, cheese, right? That kind of a diet requires a large section of land just to produce the milk. Plus you need to have a bull to impregnate, just to get the milk started. Could an entire community of Vegans assemble and maintain a sustainable complex with what is coming? My gut feeling is no fucking way.
The Earth can deal with animal waste in a variety of ways. In addition, the animals themselves can do the extra work when needed, or they can be dedicated to work full time. For a Vegan community that is strictly dependent on foot space to grow their entire sustenance from, any additional animal is a massive drag on that availability. On the flipside, where regenerative grazing techniques are being used, the land can sustain itself with a little engineering help from the animal husbandry expert. I've often wanted to call them that, farmers, ranchers, cattlemen, goat herders, chicken farmers. What if, and I stress what if... every time a cattleman or farmer got referenced by a proVegan syndicate they used that nomenclature? Just a thought, but I digress. It's much easier to form communities based on cattle production because the vegetable patches are patches, not fields. The cattle are not only a very good source of protein, they are literally the life support for the land. The entire animal can be used for a variety of things. I used to give the bones to my dog. He loved the marrow. The hides make convenient things... like SHOES. It's also very difficult to infiltrate a tight community and steal cows. They're big, have brands, know their owner and raise a fuss just on their own. There are millions of reasons to utilize animals for food, and many other things. Scale itself is the most obvious. There is no way at all to say that Veganism is a viable solution to the population problem maintaining sustainability.
How many Vegans buy at least half of their groceries from a store? After the collapse, where will that half of their complete nutritional sustenance come from? The farmers that supplement those local shortages have run out (or almost run out) of reservoir water. Their want and desire to supplement a supply system that does not benefit them or their land will evaporate, plus they'll be busy saving their own asses. Really process this scenario. Living in a heaven like scenario on Earth where sustainability is easy is a ways off. Focus on the present dilemma, and then view that dilemma from everyone else's eyes. That is the obstacle. I obviously cannot make anyone eat meat, nor can I make anyone survive... All I can say right now, is that Veganism is a virtue signaling blowhard solution to a survivability equation. It is impossible to sustain without a complex system of external energy funding its circulation. Therefore, any past epoch representations of Veganism being sustainable, required a civilization backing it. The one currently is crude oil. Veganism also requires supplements (vitamins and nutrients) that cannot be produced without a crude oil economy powering the infrastructure. It's a fad in a time where the planet is dying, and everyone wants to think they have a solution to a complex problem. Veganism is not a solution to the trophic web collapsing right now, and is selfish in inception as a result. The problems I tackle are global. Meaning they are complex solutions that benefit every human alive. What Vegans are saying by promoting their ideology as a global solution, is they do not understand what the problem is right now, how to get beyond the era of said problem, and how to sustain life FAR beyond the life they themselves are living. Veganism is a ploy to the present state of a personally derived rationale in a time of great confusion and complex problems. It may seem like a solution to the self... but the whole reason why humanity is in hell is because of the self in the first place. I see the effort and the reasoning. I see the good intention, I really do. It's misplaced, simple as. If that is offensive, I think that should be taken up with your maker. It's his system. Not mine... and certainly not a Vegan's.
I've never heard of a Vegan Amish. And yes, I am very familiar with Belgian horses, the Amish go to work horse. The problem with comparing modern society to the Amish is that it is a very strict and difficult community to enter into. They have self segregated for hundreds of years now. They already protect themselves and police themselves. When the collapse ensues, they will be vulnerable in a variety of ways, but they will stick it out. How many Vegans live in anything remotely close to that now, though? They've been at this game for hundreds of years, and Vegans just started to make a footprint recently, much less formed self sustaining, self defending communities. If the Amish are looking at taking losses, what does that say about Vegans? The other problem that hasn't been discussed is viability. Being a Vegan makes the body itself a liability in times of shortage. Is the entire community going to be subject to the deteriorating abilities of citizens that choose to not eat bacon, or burgers? Those that do eat meat will continue being able to work at full capacity, or at least more so than a Vegan. What would a Vegan say to that dereliction? What if the Vegan was the only doctor in the community? Would he starve himself of sustenance in times where only meat is available... possibly dying and forcing the entire community to live there forward without healthcare... And for what? This isn't just about some principled ideology standing out from the rest. This situation is about survivability, community, adaptability, and cohesion. Everyone eats what everyone eats, thusly, forming what humans refer to as "culture." That's where it all begins. Being a Vegan at all means that you would like to separate from your community in some way... any way. Which is an attack on cohesion itself. The ide here is to work as a team, not an individual.
"Overall the truly important question is whether there are environmentally healthy ways of growing plants and if so, what are all of the details involved in doing so."
Like I explained above, once the civilization is founded upon equilibrium, sustainability, and cohesion, being a Vegan will probably be the norm just because of the lack in required physical labor and self defense strategies. That COULD BE a few generations into the future, or it could take thousands of years to appear, or it may never happen. The opportunity for a self sustaining Vegan community in the near future is close to zero. Not because of the ability for it to occur, but more so because of the lack in ability to sustain. I am a very big supporter of aquaponics. I had a very nice set up that I was planning installing myself before this all started. But even that requires meat to produce in any meaningful way. Plants to animals, and animals to plants. In a world of dwindling resources and starvation on the horizon, the animals must play a role in sustenance. They are imperative to sustaining any kind of land production. As far as the land goes, that will all depend on how much water you can produce. The water availability will decide how many animals any plot can sustain. That's why I'm also a huge supporter of water farming in those areas. Water is the largest factor in any land viability solution, other than aquaponics ironically. After the pyramids get built, I would build planter boxes, yes. I'm not too sure where the piezoelectric hypothesis started or why they think that particular motive exists for those structures, but that picture I posted some time ago is how I would design the gardens. Yes.
"When and why did our ancestors start farming?"
This kind of a question needs to be a bit more refined to properly answer. The maturation of modern humanity's gene structure went through numerous changes over a very long period of time. Before our maker created the modern version by upgrading several versions of those spread out genetic structures, upright hominids had several uses for "farming" or agriculture. By and large these tribes of very early humans gathered their people around these naturally growing food sources. Herds of wild animals dictated their movements to sustain themselves, but it also taught them how to find vegetative foods and water. Along the way it was picked up that seeds birth plants, and thusly, the beginning stages of agriculture began to form. Their crops were mainly fruit trees, wheat, and primitive versions of several starches (potatoes, palm hearts, etc). The modern version of vegetable farming did not take shape until our genetics were upgraded and we were taught animal husbandry. The domestication of our food animals was what gave the incentive to farm vast swaths of fields, and we did it to feed them. Really, before that event arrived, the process of growing all food in a domestic setting was unheard of and didn't exist. Full blown domestication, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to, did not begin until civilization began, or 36,000-40,000 years ago, specifically.
The earliest crops were designed to domesticate and supplement animals. The first consumable crops at a large scale were based on their ability to produce fermented sugars/beer, wine, and spirits. This process started with wheat and barley that was originally intended to feed the animals. From fermentation practices of making beer, the process of making bread arrived. They are essentially identical, in fact, most bread bakeries have distilling setups in their ventilation systems to capture the ethanol made during production. As palets evolved, additives were wanted for the beer and wine. That was the incentive to domesticate plants for human consumption. To give a steady supply, at home, to the newly found consumption standards and newly formed complex palets. As far as raising vegetables en masse to feed a complex society trying to be strictly Vegan? That is a new one... Without an animal protein diet at a young age, genetics do not mature at the same pace as those who do consume animal foods. If Veganism ever did happen in the past, the population was destroyed and the remaining people were enslaved. Meaning they did not leave a lasting legacy that on any kind of memorable timescale.
Humanity wants to assume that agriculture was evolved into, but without direct intervention to upgrade genetic structures in humans themselves, a more violent and unruly mass would have sustained. So... technically speaking, the first real "agriculture" on Earth were humans themselves. Meaning, humans are the first real GMO crop. After my other lessons on what humans are feeding, this shouldn't be a difficult connection to make. When the real ancient Egypt was birthed, and humanity was given the most recent upgrade, these lessons were taught to everyone alive. The process of slowly manipulating genetics to a form that could steward the planet, AND feed their maker's purpose and will to maintain a life force, was used as THEE biomimicry platform that taught domestication and GMO practices that have endured to modern day standards. Our manipulation of genetic structures in plants, and then growing those structures of material to add to the sustenance stocks all began in Egypt. However, Egypt did not have the perfect climate for all life, so the ideals were spread, the process was taught, and the regions determined what crops would be most efficient.
In short, humans themselves were the first real domesticated crop on Earth. Trying to determine when and where that process of manipulating our DNA slowly, so that the extraterrestrial additions of DNA sequencing could function on Earth, began is fairly easy to discern. That process began when the dinosaurs became extinct. It was a very slow and determined process with many variations along the way that could not live up to the standards of The Hierarchy. These primitive hominids that evolved the genetic sequencing into a malleable form fit for creating the modern human, were not given the basic lessons of civilization. While there were attempts at domestication as I said before, the attempts were nothing like what modern agriculture is. That structure was taught as biomimicry from the process of creating humans... for the same reasons. They eat us, and we eat the crops. Same/same.
"What did the first humans eat?"
The purist form of originally created modern human ate a large variety of things. Their domesticated herds, fish, and several types of fruits and vegetables, to be specific. The land was plentiful in all ways, and the population was not as overwhelming as it is today. The goals were different so the motivation to produce abundance was nothing like now. A loss of an entire season of vegetable crops did not bother our earliest ancestors in any meaningful way. Adapting was easy because the modern complexities that fuel the desire to be individualistic did not even enter into the equation. That is the biggest hurdle to understanding the difference between us and them. The motivation that exists right now to genetically modify sustenance is based on a very large population that cannot feed itself without constantly implementing pesticides, and fertilizing with crude oil derivatives. The unmitigating population explosion is what gave the motivation to grow food in the modern way. The real Egyptian ancestors, had a much different motivation for learning what they learned. Their lessons were learned because they wanted variety, and to complexify their sustenance. We do it because we have to with so many uncontrollably breeding morons shitting their self replicas out without a care in the world other than continuing the self replica shitting out as often as possible. They did it because they wanted to. If humanity does not continue this assault on the biosphere, a very large portion of humanity must perish. This is the essence within the scenario of omnicide itself. After 1970/overshoot, it is imperative that the process be maintained. There is no other way to produce the sustenance for this size of a population. If we continue doing things this way, everyone will die along with the planet itself. If we self segregate into sustainable communities based on the land's ability to provide sustenance, a very large portion of humanity must die... but there will be survivors. That's the real question to everyone alive right now; How willing are we to put the species as a whole first, above our selfish aspirations? The clock is ticking, and as of December 21st 2019, we are keeping score.
"Do you have a recommended maximum number of humans on Earth? The Georgia Guidestones say 500 million."
That all depends on the paradigm, zeitgeist of the general populace, and genetic purity. The form of question, and the way in which you pose it has connections to a very derelict ideology that all are equal. At least that is what the question implies. It's as if you are asking blindly, how many random genetic structured forms of human can push this planet to absolute capacity. I've stressed several times now that equality is not possible, especially with the purity situation. I'll give you my version of this answer in the hopes that this idea will finally hit its mark. With the current hodge podge of several racial groups that are all interbreeding without any form of self control, or guidance towards a more refined version of the modern genetic structure fueling the breeding, 500,000,000 is a fairly accurate guess. Why? Just take a look at society and how uninformed the general populace is on what their actions are birthing. This is the conclusion of the equality ideals unmitigated. Omnicide... is the proper nomenclature. On a world full of black people, Asians, or Indians (dots not feathers), devoid of white people or Indios... about 0. The constant squabbling and lack of planning for the future will lead to starvation, regret, animosity, and eventual stagnation/atrophy, or all out war. Suicide, in other words. Not omnicide. Omnicide has to do with people waging war on their own environment, whether it be knowingly or unknowingly. Suicide wil just humanity killing itself for personally charged reasons. On a planet like Earth full of nothing but white people, upwards of 10-20 billion. The infrastructure would span the entire globe, and together we would all fuel each other's progress, just like the "west" has done for the last several hundred years. The biomimicry platform would be identical to what humanity's maker is doing throughout this realm. There are many planets full of life that feed him sustenance. Earth could be a viable source of his nutrition, but as we can see just from recent events, selfishness and sexual desire are the real motivators for this current Earth population. Do you think it is a coincidence that is occurring at a time when white people make up less than 10% of the global population?
Colonization was what was supposed to give birth to the idea of a connected planet that could progress together. White people brought medicine, education, infrastructure, art, architecture, mobility, and domestication of food sources to the racial demographics of Earth... and what did they do with that knowledge? They bred themselves out of control, usurped our gifts and flaunted them as their own, then brutally attacked any truth that pointed to the actual mechanisms that evolved their societies. Now, after this process of demonizing everyone that brought the gift of civilization has reached peak propaganda standards, every racial demographic on Earth thinks they evolved into this complexity on their own. The hatred for those who tried to colonize/uplift societal function for primitive cultures, is the exact same scenario as humans en masse capitulating to the idea of evolution without creation. Our modern genetic structures were created. The societal complexities that all cultures of this world live by now, were given to white people by our maker. We didn't figure all of this out because we were "smarter." It was a gift. Most modern white people now do not even understand this, but those of us that do, give proper reverence for this amazing gift. Those that do not, I call niggers. Yes. There are many white niggers... Not only have white people been derelict in bestowing this reverence onto their maker, but the civilizations that white people have helped to uplift are also derelict to bestowing reverence onto their creator... wait for it... white people. Pride and ego seems to have won this internal battle, and now everyone is propagandized to assume ANYONE can do, what white people have actually done. That's impossible... and considering the trajectory of humanity's future, it appears that this lesson will be taught directly. The real problem is relinquishing selfishness, pride, and entitlement. If everyone alive were capable of doing this, my population assumptions would be very different. However, I am just going off of what actually exists, and how these societies got to where they are. There is no need to ponder what COULD happen, when we have so many examples of what has happened. It is not an insult to the self to be humble and accept that all humans are a subspecies of another being, it's actually Divine. BUT... given the indoctrination of the masses, it will be extremely difficult to end this ego driven insanity. And THAT... is the WW3 sequence that I've been referencing. Those are the battles taking place in the minds of everyone alive right now. The stakes are quite simply understood as, humble yourselves, or face annihilation/extinction. Welcome to the vanguard.
"Cuba" and "peak oil situation."
Cuba did not, and has not experienced any form of a "peak oil situation." The problem with Marion King Hubbert's research does not reside with him, but rather, in everyone that utilizes the nomenclature "peak oil" to signify an internal ideal of what those two words mean to the selfish individual using them. Cuba did have a sudden lack of participating in the global crude oil economic platform, but it did not go through a peak oil situation. Communism, pride, bravado, and selfishness is what caused the shift in Cuba's rejuvenation of Organic farming practices. Instead of swallowing their pride, admitting defeat, and joining the rest of humanity, they doubled down on their derelict ideology, and forced starvation onto their general populace as a result. The general populace fought back in the only way they could, which was to take care of themselves. Lawns became gardens, animals became the workers, and the people formed an equilibrium as a result. During this swap, the bravado and arrogance was allowed to be maintained by the upper echelon, and insider deals still formed. Cuba does have exports. Their economic interests extend beyond their populace's ability to be truly self segregated. This internal ideology is only possible with a fully integrated crude oil economy on a global scale existing outside of Cuba. An "end" to global crude oil reserves, or an extreme downturn, and Cuba would have lost a lot more than they did after the collapse of the USSR. Cuba's first problem in that scenario would be their ability to fight off intruders to their fish stocks that surround the island. If they lost the ability to control the waters around them, Cuba would be kaput. There may not be any beef on their menus, but I bet there's a shitload of fish options...
Let's start by giving you a quick rundown on what peak oil is. Many people try to utilize that nomenclature without understanding the data that created it in the first place. The word peak itself, refers to a precipice, not an "end." The only way to even attempt trying to understand what peak oil is, is by becoming an expert in EROEI. Energy Returned On Energy Invested, which is sometimes referred to as EROI. Same thing, just different wording. What Marion King Hubbert's version of that nomenclature was based on, was the declining Permian Basin's data, along with a burgeoning Ghawar reservoir's data, extrapolated to the remaining oil fields throughout the world. When Ghawar started to lose pressure, signifying the BEGINNING of its decline, along with the data from the Permian basin's reserves which have been declining for many decades, AND with the end of the Pennsylvania reserves in the rear view mirror, the trajectory was well established. EROEI wise, Hubbert's peak... was based on the precipice at which new reserves could be found and extracted at the same profit margin/EROEI, as the remaining oil preserves could maintain that were already being drawn from. The decline in every oil well's production over time varies in speed, but EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ALWAYS IN DECLINE. To give you an even more focused synopsis, ALL of this data is subjugated to the quality of the crude oil. The Permian Basin and Ghawar have/had the largest source of light sweet crude in the entire world. Light sweet crude is what birthed the middle class ideals of the 1940s and 1950s. What that nomenclature addresses is similar to how I described The Holy Grail's definition. It's referring to the high gasoline content which adds to viscosity (meaning easier to extract), sweet, meaning the low sulfur content (easier to refine), and crude refers to the substance itself in its crudest form.
There is a caveat to understand within this paradigm of a crude oil/finite energy reserve civilization. It's called Jevon's Paradox, as per Sid Smith. What it signifies is that the more we extract, the more we use. The more efficient we become, the more we use. The more people we birth, the more we use. Adding efficiency within this system does nothing to curtail the inevitable decline. If anything, efficiency within a crude oil economy tied to capitalism will increase overall usage dramatically. To the MK Ultra'd selfish disposition of the world's general populace currently; constant expansion without addressing these problems, is not a theory, it's a fact. As a result, Hubbert's version of peak oil has long since passed us by. The proof of that was when tar sands, shale reserves, and deep water reserves were tapped. Not only are those sources extremely heavy, and sour, but the material itself requires very sophisticated solutions that do not always pan out. There's even a movie about one of those deep water rigs exploding. Look at how much effort that took... JUST TO DRILL THE HOLE. Not the rig exploding and spilling gigatons of crude oil into the surface environment, but just to drill the hole. The Beverly Hillbillies found their oil reserve in the Permian basin with a shotgun, if memory serves. That's how easy it was to extract light sweet crude in our parent's parent's days. NOW... they're going through all of that trouble, just to refine heavy sour crude oil. The EROEI is backwards on shale and tar sands when the environmental toxicity cleanup is addressed, and the recycling of machinery away from those mining strategies. Even though that is a fact... it still seems economically feasible to the selfish and stupid, to maintain the societal infrastructure's whole. They're not exactly wrong, either. The crude oil economy (Lake of Fire) is everywhere on Earth. A complete swap over to Hydrogen (from this societal model of economics and fiat currency) would take an enormous amount of reclamation. Imagine how many gasoline/diesel stations would have to dig up their tanks and dispose of them properly. Then ALL car manufacturers would have to completely retool everything. And so on and so forth. Not only is that a difficult proposition, but then try to imagine every human on Earth HAVING TO learn a completely different system. How many selfish and stupid people would take the instructions for granted, expect hydrogen fill stations to be exactly like a gas station, and blow up the entire block as a result? I use this same analogy with morons that think personal nuclear reactors are a viable alternative. Imagine thousands of nuclear reactors in the basements of every resident in let's say... Flint Michigan. How long before Lake Michigan is inundated with radiation and the entire ecosystem therein collapses? But I digress...
The peak oil scenario from Hubbert's perspective is quite technical and applied to empirical data. What I am guessing is your view of peak oil, based on what you said about Cuba, is more of a philosophical ideology. What most people are referring to when that nomenclature is utilized, as you are trying to imply it, is the concerted effort, or forced by time result of an end to using crude oil. The reason why this is a philosophical approach is because the system that created crude oil can never stop, or we all die. That is the planet sequestering carbon to form its own equilibrium. Many forms of crude oil (before it becomes crude oil) are still going to be viable from a non burning perspective. How to pick and choose those variables in an already capitalistic mind frame is anyone's guess on how that will coalesce, however, meaning it's philosophical. Before that can even be contemplated, a viable alternative must be found. The problem in finding an alternative to crude oil is that NOTHING is as energy dense as crude oil is, especially light sweet crude. This conundrum implies that a drastic shift in efficiency must compensate. What I am saying is that no matter how efficient this system implemented gets, many people will have to die, or sterilize themselves as a result. You can only push the parameters of the Earth's trophic web so far, and without crude oil energy, or a viable alternative to match or exceed its capability (all while being carbon neutral and unlimited), people must sacrifice. Otherwise, omnicide will consume everything. Even the way in which you described Cuba could not occur during a real collapse. Cuba also had the ability to illegally raise money through drugs, and various other shady systems that were regulated outside of their country's influence, that they could leech from. Drugs, human trafficking, and all other forms of degeneracy are also fueled by the crude oil economy. There will be none of these alternative means of raising capital when the entire planet is reaching peak omnicide. My guess is THAT is what you, and so many others are trying to imply when using the term "peak oil," without understanding what Marion King Hubbert meant. There are legions of people that imply all kinds of stuff to that reference, and all of them mean something other than what peak oil actually means. The reason why I called that ideal peak omnicide is because once we burn the oil... it's gone. There is no recovery back to a functioning oil economy. At that point, humanity will be forced to fight each other for the dwindling resources left over, or drastically change EVERYTHING about their lives once and for all. To simplify: Omnicide, or Salvation...
What happened to Cuba was an embargo from the crude oil using nations. Let's say for argument's sake that the USA was met with the same scenario right now. We would be fine internally, but everyone else would be fucked. Ghawar would have to double production to meet the loss of our crude oil exports. BUT... let's just say that we didn't have the Permian Basin or ANWR's reserves, and had to suddenly go organic because we were embargoed by every other country. Inversely of Cuba, our weather does not permit year round farming in all zones, nor do dominantly sunnier regions have sustained water for that type of a swap. Therefore, resource migration ensues. Unfortunately, there's nowhere left to run to, and no more energy reserves on the horizon waiting to be discovered. War is the summation. If what I think you're trying to imply by using Cuba as a reference is accurate, there will be well fed, well cared for, and fully integrated platoons of Vegans to fight off the cattle farmers upstream that are stealing your crops and diverting your water during this forced migration... You see why that's funny, right?
Any referential sources of analogous systems to that which you are choosing to use as a viable alternative to a crude oil economy are fantasy. These sources of reference only exist because of the crude oil economy continuing to function outside of the reference. In your mind, you have to picture a system that is devoid of external influence entirely, to the point of not existing. Imagine Cuba being alone. I mean REALLY alone. No other countries could supply ANYTHING to them, and what's worse, they would have to protect themselves from all others trying to steal their shit. The actual result would be that a lot more people would have died, and the centralized power structure would be kaput. There may be some semblance of governmental system that would remain, but even the politicians would need to supply their own sustenance. Even having a "royalty" like system (as most politics are today), where the dignitaries do not produce anything in their worthless lives, implies that there is an external energy source with energy to spare. That would not be the case in a global collapse of the crude oil economy scenario... at any level. Communities won't be able to afford it. It's just basic math. Using Cuba as a reference to a solution for the present dilemma of omnicide is bad science. I'm sorry, but it is. The basic control of each scenario is astronomically different in scope and complexity. Before using nomenclatures like peak oil to certify notions of a global collapse of the trophic web, you might want to study up on what peak oil actually is. Plus, switching to Veganism to stifle the progress of omnicide is in no way, shape, or form a solution. It's virtue signaling... which is exactly why terms like "peak oil" are used by Vegans in the way they are... It's because these ideals are not properly understood, yet fought for emotionally. I'm not trying to demean you here. I'm trying to get you to understand the full scope of these subjects you are passionate about. Several of your referencial points are inaccurate, and your entire view would change if these things were properly researched. Just to reiterate, if you want to choose to be Vegan, that's your choice to make. I have to advise you, however, that a Vegan is a liability to the survival of the whole during a global collapse. If the community you form is willing to accept the deteriorated genetic structure of a self prescribed Vegan's body into their resource base, that's on them... and you. Your withered ability, to that of an omnivore, especially during a collapse, will have to be accepted by you, as well. What your body could accomplish as an omnivore, and what that could provide to your community as a result, will need to be foregone for a personal, selfish, preference. You will be forcing others to take up slack for you. My goal is to create an optimum environment for all. Where ideals of a welfare state are gone to history. Veganism may not seem like a welfare system in today's crude oil economy with copious Satanic complexities (unnecessary implements), but the world of the immediate future tells a different tale. There's no reason to take any of this personally as though I am attacking something you stand for. I see Vegans trying to do the "right thing." What it actually looks like to me is religious. The notions are correct, but there are too many bad translations, bad science, and an almost complete lack of practical application to humanity's survival, and thriving thereafter. Veganism is a liability to accomplishing the goal of staving off omnicide... just like religion. It's my hope that you will see these aspects that have gone on unnoticed. Base intentions are everything. Until you can truly see things from everyone else's perspective, some of the more intricate and personal aspects are ignored. I'm just trying to help... even though this may seem like a berating session.
"Do you have recommendations on how to increase this ability?"
The only cure is to eliminate the stress. I cannot guarantee when it will happen, but I have given all the necessary tools to make a truly stress free life on Earth. Real purpose for everyone alive. A clear path to Salvation... but people seem to be content burning alive in the Lake of Fire. So... we all wait for them. When you reach a point of transcendence and are officially a type 1 civilization, relationship struggles are nothing like now. Sex is not a valuable commodity. Although everyone will be moving towards purity, and subsequently be beautiful as a result, sex will not be a selling point for women. At that point, society will dramatically shift. Feminism gave women the ability to make choices. All of them... even the women who shouldn't be allowed to choose. With that ability, the nuclear family dynamic has been obliterated, sexual promiscuity and STDs are common, porn is free and available to everyone with internet access, even young children, and why? The simple fact of the matter is that sex sells, AND!!! it's a fairly stress free environment. Some of those aspects are utilized by the general public, and the result is a much sexualized paradigm for all women to deal with. It becomes a competition to keep up with the herd. The cure to all of this stress is the nuclear family.
At a fundamental level, the nuclear family dynamic must remain intact. When women were given the right to vote, divorce rates skyrocketed, and the nuclear family suffered, thusly, everyone alive suffered... especially the women. When women estrange their children for personal conquest, a bond is severed that can never be mended. Internally to an emotional being/woman, this brings on devastation. That feeling of remorse and inadequacy gets filled with more sexual conquest, drugs, alcohol, possibly more kids, and then some more sex and alcohol, and the problem continues to grow in scope. All of this selfish shit needs to stop, then the stress will go away. Women stress these days because their men stress about the women fucking other guys. If the men didn't have a reason to stress over such notions, they wouldn't. My advice for a stress free life for a woman is to do everything you can possibly do, to ease the stress of your husband. You do that by being loyal, selfless, and productive. Men are going to be protecting everything in these communities of the future. Why would women try to make men resentful towards women if that's the case? If I was a woman, that is what I would do to secure my future during the collapse; say my marriage vows, and actually live by them. Men have a longer list of problems to deal with than women. If the goal is to create a stress free environment, there's your answer. In hell, women have been taught the exact opposite of what I just said, no? Empowerment, individualism, selfishness... all plights to break marriage vows/the nuclear family. Women cannot compete with men, and shouldn't even want to. That's like going to war with yourself. Men and women need each other, and that is the basis for the nuclear family. Severing that bond can therefore, only bring stress.
If humanity makes it beyond the collapse, well beyond the stresses of building an entire Earth covered in pyramids, sustained ecosystems, and purity, there will be no difference between the intellectual abilities of men and women. There are glimpses of this now in varying sectors of complex management scenarios, but those scenarios have an oil economy tied to them. Meaning ANYONE has the ability to choose to be selfish, or otherwise separate themselves from the whole, and their resource base will continue functioning and reinforcing the derelict notions of selfishness. That simply will not be the case in the near future, as I've been explaining. When these equilibrium scenarios are met, ALL stresses will slowly dissolve away. Women will be able to compete with men in all aspects of intellectual progress. Why? There won't be a reason to COMPETE at all. Men won't care who or what solved a problem, just that it was solved. And women won't brag about their ability to outsmart a man, because they will recognize that they wouldn't be in a place to solve that problem if it wasn't for men. Of course these types of ego battles will exist on some level for a very long time here, if humanity makes it, but they will slowly fade over time. Trying to leap ahead in this game of life can only hurt you. Stay in the moment and realize the steps to success that are necessary for that conclusion. This scenario might not even happen in your lifetime, but the goal is within reach whether you will get to see it or not. How will each woman choose to behave is entirely up to them. Women too have free will. Use it wisely.
The nine protrusions are fairly simple from what I understand of them. Birth/love/creation, 5 senses, intelligence/reason/logic, emotion/pain/feminism, time/degradation/death. They're not really an easy set of terms to identify with human language. Some of them are, like your "tools of the trade," your senses, but the others are difficult to fully comprehend from a human perspective. I try to stay with my protrusion. It's what I'm good at. Speaking for the other protrusions is not my place. I can explain my exact opposite on the protrusion scale, meaning Jesus, but that's really all I should comment on. Normally when I get these questions it's implied that there is some form of esoteric dogma containing chakras, sage smoke and mushrooms involved with elevating protrusions within the self. The situation is a lot more pragmatic and practical in application. There's also the questions that lead to Christ hopefuls and what they each stood for. I try to stay away from this kind of stuff because this information does not help humanity at all. The first Christ of this cataclysm cycle is pertinent, the last Christ hopeful is pertinent due to the feminstic irony of present society, I am pertinent. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to delve too deeply into them. They are numerous, but seven of them stand out. All of them had the same goals as Jesus and myself had, except they never woke up to the grand complexity of the entire system. History would have remembered these individuals from certain aspects of what we teach, but never the full load. In most cases, they were controversial to their era, and barely made it to safety alive long enough to fully integrate their lessons. The seven or so that I have seen, weren't even recognized as special. In several cases those hopefuls were coaching someone else in society, just like Maria was the hopeful, and Adolf was her student. History recognizes Adolf as the mastermind, though. The same problem would compound going back further in time. To be honest, it's a waste of time to even pursue the information.
"If women were created as a punishment, does that mean being one is a punishment? As in, every woman was in a previous lifetime a man who was some kind of failure?"
Definitely not. Being a woman is not necessarily a punishment, although I see why people think that. The idea of equality and a level playing field for everyone is an enticing idea. That is just not the case at this stage of development. Women, and every other subspecies to that of white men with blue eyes actually have a much easier path to Salvation. They do not have to accomplish the same goals. IF... they do everything necessary for us to accomplish our goals, they too are accomplishing their own. For example, a black woman choosing to sterilize herself, self segregate to her people's homeland Africa, teach everyone how sustainability, equilibrium, and purity are benefits, ALL for the betterment of her species, she would rocket past a white man with blue eyes that just became a cog in an already functioning system. She would gain the ability to go anywhere she wanted during her next life. Sterilization needs to be controlled and done for the right reasons. I am not even suggesting outright killing any subspecies, not even Jews. What the goal should be is to create an equilibrium point of sustainability, then maintain it. Every subspecies on Earth is living beyond their means. People can slowly come to an equilibrium by self sacrificing their ability to have children, or do like China did. 1 child per couple. But as we can see, that didn't really help anything. Each sub specie should have their own self segregated area that they form an equilibrium with. If THAT is the reasoning behind why people choose to sterilize themselves, that is selfless. If people choose to sterilize themselves so they can fuck everything with a pulse and add to the nuclear family deterioration conundrum, that is selfish. The intentions always come out during judgement. That said, choosing these paths for selfless reasons is Divine in every way. The further down the list you are when you make these decisions, the further you can "jump" when you transcend. It's easy for white men to not want to breed right now, because these choices are so difficult. It's up to a significant portion of humanity to CHOOSE to not breed, and instead encourage white men with blue eyes to breed. Arguably, an impossibility within hell, but nonetheless, that's the game. I have no doubt in my mind that I will be seeing many different subspecies members soar past white men with blue eyes during judgement. That's not the issue. The issue is... will ALL of them do it? It's not looking very likely. Just saying.
The placement of a soul doesn't necessarily signify what past indiscretions were pursued. Nor does being a woman signify that you fucked up in any way. Both are necessary to the whole, and both have obligations. To see why women were a punishment, you must view a scenario beyond the procreation standard model humanity lives by. The Yews are a perfect example. They did not breed. Their lives were simple, refined, and purely Divine. Just being a Yew meant you were essentially untouchable by any human. Far beyond our stature in every way. They did not even have to eat... There were no women for their species because there was no justification for procreation. The Yews could have lived indefinitely, if the humans didn't fuck up so badly. They were also gentle and unwilling to fight at all. They knew what was coming for them after death, should that ever arrive, and were content at every waking moment of their existence. Humans on the other hand have lived this way for so long, our punishments reflect our arrogance. We were scared of dying even though there is no reason to be frightened, and tried to assume control of all aspects of our destiny. So... humanity's maker gave humanity women so the perception of a continued progeny lineage after death could be assumed from a physical life perspective; procreation ensued. That was eons ago, however, and now the man woman dichotomy is seen as a teaching tool for understanding and subsequently balancing the principles inherent to every life in this realm. If/when humanity makes it, procreation will be seen as a blessing. It's really the only tool we've been given to right our wrongs. Right now, though, in hell, where purity is seen as a bad word and selfish carnal pleasures are viewed as empowering, women, and by default procreation itself... is indeed a punishment. It's a tool just like everything else... even you and I. It all comes down to how that tool is used. Use your tools wisely.
"On a similar train of thought, why did our maker create black people? Were they meant to be a certain way or perform a specific task?"
Black people, along with every other subspecies, were created to teach what civilized life looks like to a type 1 and beyond civilization. The creator of this realm likes a certain type of food prepared a certain way. His way. The original way. Imagine black people are watermelons, and Indios are beans. How can someone consume a watermelean? The two are separate for a reason to a human, correct? Does a bean flavored watermelon, or watermelon flavored refried beans sound appetizing? Now what if the crops you planted eons ago were designated to farm themselves/be given free will? Your supervisor instructed you that that was the only way to survive, so it had to be done. As an insurance policy, color was added, languages were issued, and every crop was separated by vast swaths of land. But one day the crops started to intermingle on their own, ignoring their own creators' designed segregation attempts. Given a long enough time period, all watermelons and beans would be integrated, and no pure watermelons or beans even existed. The beatermelons would take it a step further, and declare that they were not even created as a crop, or commit the ultimate betrayal of purpose in declaring they're the original crop that all other crops were based on... Confusion and idiocy would ensue at every level.
Black people were first created as labor, just like almost every other human. Specialized labor, but labor nonetheless. The original black genetic lineage loved their position in this system because they were good at it. All black people want to do now is take the reigns of every civilized society on Earth and call it their own, and they suck at leading. They're not made for it. Regardless, the idea of a diverse genetic populace is to teach you how to remain pure, while still integrating. Humanity figured out how to integrate, but they are severely lacking in purity morals. Imagine that on an interspecies level. Which atmosphere would they live in, what gravity parameters? Would they be in constant pain and suffering on either planet of their parent's origin? These are problems that should not be contemplated from the position of the creator's creation. If the creator wants that integration, he will provide it. The separation of subspecies in humanity on Earth was to make this lesson easy. Unfortunately everyone listened to the Jews, feminists, and emotional plights of selfishness and parasitic attachment, and as a result, failed this section of purity judgement. Emphatically.
"Must it be that way?"
There will always be designated strengths to each sex, and as a result the complexity of any given community will be based on those strengths. The crude oil economy allows complexity failure attempts while goals are pursued. No such thing will be allowed during the collapse. The energy to recover from such failures will not exist in any conventional way. When it comes to big production as was the case in the environment I got hurt in, some things yes and some things no. I made beer, wine, milk, etc bottles and jars at high capacity production. I don't think those systems will exist in any comparable way, although I don't see jar production going away. At some level, glass production will continue. Our older machines ran on purely mechanical drums similar to how a music box functions. The entire process could be electricity free, and glass is almost 100% recyclable. CAN women do it? Maybe. Should we waste time trying to push for them to be able to do it instead of just getting the job done as efficiently as possible? No. There are ways to scale down several different aspects of modern society so that everyone CAN do the tasks. The real question is, why? So... must it be that way? For now, yes. In the distant future it won't matter, like I said earlier... but this is not the distant future, so pursuing those kinds of goals can only inhibit progress in the present.
"How much have you restored your ability in that hand?"
About 66%, hahaha. Before I got injured, I worked out every day, was an avid bowler, and a machinist. It's difficult for me to be a machinist, but I try. The other two personal pursuits are impossible. I have tried, and it's extremely painful. Normal everyday shit has switched to my left hand for the most part now so that's a difficult question for me to answer in any meaningful way. Many ways of doing things earlier in life, I will never do again. There will always be a significant portion of me that is just simply unavailable. Again... this is a punishment... for humanity, not me. This derelict body on a Christ is what humanity earned when they tortured and murdered Jesus. You get what you give.
That was a long "1"... Sheeeeeeit.
Brian