Yemen: Let Nature Take Its Course

Yemen: Let Nature Take Its Course

by David Archibald

22 November 2018

 

A decade ago there was a notion called Responsibility to Protect, including a UN effort under that name to stop bad things from happening to people. The apotheosis of that notion was an act passed by Congress called the Global Food Security Act of 2016, under which the United States undertook to not allow anyone on the planet to starve to death.

The reason the population of the planet ten thousand years ago wasn’t ten billion was lack of food. Food was hard to get, and there was almost no surplus of it to allow any activity other than looking for food. Cheap fossil fuels and new technologies have made food abundant. This is the most bounteous time for a human to be alive, in all of our species’ history. The population of the planet has responded by compounding away as fast as some parts of it can breed.

There are system limits though. At some stage population growth will come up against a hard constraint. Venezuela as a whole is now on a calorie-restricted diet, but there are few signs of starvation as yet.

The first country to tip over into starvation in this time of abundance ends looks like being Yemen, It has a population of 23 million living in a country that might provide enough food for three million. This article, quoting the concerns of former Obama officials Samantha Power and Ben Rhodes, says that 14 million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation at the moment.

Figure 1: Online globalist agitprop re Yemen exhibit A

There were several major starvation events in the 20th century but they were politically driven, not the result of the forces of nature. Stalin engineered the Holomodor in Ukraine in the early 1930s to get rid of the kulaks, killing four million-odd in the process. Mao amped it up by an order of magnitude in the late fifties in his Great Leap Forward, killing some 40 million people. After that there was a drought in India that killed one million in 1967, a natural event. The only mass killings of note after that were the Pakistani military killing of three million Bangladeshis in 1971, and the Khmer Rouge killing a similar number of Cambodians from 1975.

Figure 2: Online globalist agitprop re Yemen exhibit B

By comparison, the death tolls of recent wars are amateur hour. For instance, the Syrian conflict has killed less than the population growth of the survivors.

When the war in Afghanistan started in 2001, the population of the country was 26 million — it’s now 35 million. The war has killed hardly any of the locals. In fact traffic deaths kill as many Afghanis each year as the ongoing war does. At its current growth rate, the country’s population is doubling every 24 years. Within its own borders Afghanistan might be able to grow enough food to feed perhaps 15 million people.

Egypt lost the ability to feed itself from its own efforts decades ago, but the number of Egyptians is still bounding away. In fact the frisson of changes of government associated with the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have produced a spike in Egyptian fertility.

Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle East are playing a game of musical chairs. The first place where the music will stop is Yemen, and thus the concern of the likes of Power and Rhodes. Not for the fate of the Yemenis themselves. The Yemenis are proxies for Iran and are flinging ballistic missiles at Saudi targets. The Saudis are quite within their rights in killing as many of these Yemenis as they can, in whatever way they can. Then the rain of missiles into Saudi Arabia from Yemen might stop. Iran is spending $30 billion per annum in fueling wars and conflict in the Middle East and doing things such as sending agents to Thailand to kill Jews.

Figure 3: Online globalist agitprop re Yemen exhibit C

Power and Rhodes and their ilk are concerned that the spectacle of mass starvation will take the public’s attention away from make-believe problems such as global warming to real concerns about their own security. Immigration will be seen to be the very bad thing that it really is, because it increases the chance that the United States will go from abundance to food scarcity — however unlikely that might seem at the moment, while we are turning grain into fuel in order to get rid of it.

That is why we are told to adopt a vegetarian diet to fight global warming. And why there are articles extolling the virtues of eating insects as sources of animal protein. The globalists want to keep the price of grain down as long as possible before the inevitable hits, with the consequence that the voting public of the productive countries on the planet, the OECD countries, swing hard to the conservative side.

Animal protein takes a lot of plant protein to make, from four times as much plant protein for chicken and pigs up to twenty times with beef. It is our birthright to eat meat while parts of the rest of the planet starve. It is our duty to our culture, our children, and the generations as yet unbegotten and unborn, to eat meat while parts of the rest of the planet starve. They wouldn’t be starving if they had a culture like ours. They wouldn’t have a lot of the bad things that happen to them happen if they had chosen to adopt our culture. They have chosen poorly and so have chosen their own fate. Do not weep for them — eat steak!

 

David Archibald’s latest book is American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare.