SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 02-01-24, 07:45 PM

@Eichhörnchen,
Yes, its difficult if needing to stick with what the supermarket usually offers. And its even worse since it is not a sif the stuff does not taste - it often does taste.
Also, they make meat more and more expensive to bring people away from it without being accused of having banned it, and the EU wants to do like this with all animal foodsd and animal prpotein: milk, eggs, chicken, pork - everything animal protein should ebcome unaffordable. Thats why I do not buy organic meat, it costs twice as much than beef from conventional lifestock - and more. And they wan tto make it even much more expensive. At the same time schools and kidnergardenm morer and mroe enforce veganism. The kids must grow, their brains and nerovus systems still develope - and thes ebastards have nothignb better to do than to cut down nutrients that are essential for brain developement. I already know now how this will end, the costs will become visible in elss than a generation, and even already are ovvious in form of many psychological and cognitive disorder that spread in our young generations like a pandemic.

We have these wonderful big farming monocultures and oil seeds, you know, and the agricultural lobby wants to make sure that their stuff gets bought by people. These agricultural companies and cereal industries often are proxies of or are linked to the 7th Day Adventist Church, like Kellogs and Graham are, for example. And this sect wants to enforce all people turning vegan, eatoing the garden Eden diet as they call it - they work since 100 years to get there, and bidne nwo has made their goal official health policy in the US, the dietariuan guidelines are fully reflecting their demands now. They also have bought themselves in at the WHO. So, health arguments meet ideolgocial-sectarian conspiracy. Its like a Philip K. Dick novel.

On critical food items, however, some things are worse than others, and when it comes to sweetening, this is true twice and three times. At the very top of the red list is high fructose corn syrup, and maltodextrin, followed by the others. Refined white sugar is not worst! Its very bad, absolutely, but a few things are even worse than it. HFCS. Maltodextrin. Glucose corn syrup. And this stuff is in practically everything these days - everything.

Also, ingredients that are not exceeding certain vol% of a given package content - must not be declared. A loophole that the industry massively abuses and that the politicians have granted them, like they often do. Tell the voters that you regulated something as demanded, and allow the regulated party to nevertheless escape.

----------------

@Markus,

the biggest empire known in history were the Huns/Mongoles. They were strong, fearful people from the Asian steppes and formed the biggest territory any empire ever accumulated. They were fearsome, strong, very resistent to weklanes and desease, and as warriors they were feared and stronger and tougher than the men of the people they haunted and conquered. They lived of meat from their horses, blood of their horses, and milk of their horses.

When Thomas Jefferson met Indian chieftains once, and this is documented, he exclaimed afterwards, full of enthusiasm, how huge these men would have been, towering over him by one or one and a half head lengths, he couldn't get his head around it. Now Jefferosn himself was a damn tall fellow, he would have been a baskertball star today before he became president. The white settlers also reported that the Indian men were still hunting buffalo with the young men at the age of 90, 100 and beyond, and that many of them lived to be around 120.

In recent years, most anthropologists have stopped the narration that our ancestors prospered when agricultural farming was invented and introduced. Instead it is clear that tribes living a harsh life in desert-like, infertile regions that allowed no farming, were tough and phyisclaly strong, and needed to move around since they depended on animal lifestock they ate and had learned to herd. You can see very often in history on all continents, that where such animal-eating people "collided" with people that had moved to eating cultivated plants that allowed them to live a stationary life, the attackers often were tougher, stronger and the better warriors. The yha dbetter pshyaicla stamina. The plant eaters over time suffered form physicla degewnration. Their body height shrunk. The jawbones shrunk, they had bad teeth that did not find enough space anymore (like with so many modern people today). They got easier sick. They wre not as strong anymore. Heck, even brain size shrunk over the past 6000-12000 years, we have lost around 12-15% of the brain size our ancestors before that time had.

A famous field study from almost 100 years ago (I think 1931) compares the Massai to their direct neighbours, the Kikuju. Its a textbook study of such high exemplary value that it often gets quoted. Both tribes lived in the same habitat, so environmental factors did not explain any pohysi8cla differences between them. But their dietary habits did: the Massaid lived of the meat, blood and milk of their cows and buffalo, the Kikuju were vegetarian.

The Massai of that time were very high, tall people, muscular, tough, feared warriors with great endurance and stamina. They got rarely sick. The Kikuju were grown much smaller, had smalle rheads, were of lesser physical power, stamina, endurance, and tooth problems and faulty tooth positioning in the jaw bone were frequent. They got easier and more often sick, too.

They now did that archeological work in that place the article your link describes. Well, that is one place in this whole wide world, and we know not wiyh the people who lived mtheir ate what they ate. Maybe they had no other choice, no animal food was available. However, that Southamerican indians lived of Quinoa and Amaranth, whcih ahs its benefiots in nutrient content, but we do not know HOW wlel the ylive dof it, hwo their dogestion was, for exmaple. We do nto know if they volunteered for it, or lacked alternatives, had no lifestock. Considering the size of their empires, lackign animals to eat might have been a problem. We do know however that they were small in body height than the ordinary European person back then or today.

Note that there is a strong ideological publication bias nowadays in all media to write about how healthy and good and how climate-friendly and how animal friendly vegetarian food is. Its a propaganda war goign on. You read almost never in these media about the nurtient deficiency, the toxic nature of plant seed oils (which get sold to us as espoecialyl halthy...). I rea dmany warnigns of eggs. Eggs! That is hiolarious, but some years ago Taft university rled that the nutriotnal vlaue of candy-saweet breakfats cereals by Kellos were multiple times healthier than eating an egg and a slice of meat! Can one take that serious anymore? We now get frightned that red meat causes cancers (BS, btw.), and the Harvard university is especially infamous now for time and again supporting the war against eating animal protein.

The EU now tells us we should get used to eating cultivated insects. I could write a long essay on why that is not really a good idea both regarding health and energy consumption, this idea is as foolish as it sounds on first hear.

All this gets firther pushed by the eU under the claim of fightign agaunst CO2 and in the name iof its green deal policies. While the UN says the food production must get inbcrwased by 50-60% until 2050, the EU wants to reduce famrignb ground in Europe - while 30-40% of the potnetiually famrign ground in the whikew world is not beig cuktivate dbecasue it is unaccessibke for mahcienry of more prmjtive menas fo farming. why do we not sow grass, put cows and buffalo on it, and let nature do its thing? That woudl be the most natural food production imaginable. We have done it for thousands of years. Same in Europe where spoils are depleted and almost sterilized. We could renew the soils - by allowing grass and cattle taking care of it. Take just a few years. But no... That is against the inetrests of the cereals lobby. the agricultrurla lobby. The wowener of the mbiog monocultzurss that are such a big damage. The oil seeds indiustry. The sugar industry.

They want you to buy that bad stuff so that you get fat and sick. And they want you to then buy their drugs. And the systenm wants you to need hospital treatment. In other words: everybody expects you to generate him profits - at your own cost. The looser in all this is you. You loose in health. In life quality. In labour chances. In income. In social life quality.

And in the end: in life expectancy. The meanign of your life is: to generate them endless profits all your existence long.

I cannot explain the specific details, but I read that somethign with the telomeres in our genes (that shorten a bit with every celluar replication round and trigger apoptosis once a critical lenght has been reached) allowed biologists to conclude from them the natural life expectncy that humans could enjoyif all goes well: its around 120 years. And there we recall what I said about the Northameircna Indians, that the ylived up to 120 years,a dn went on bufalo hunt with 100 years, so obvipously they did nto sit in a wheelchair the last 50 years of these 120 years. THEY HUNTED BUFFALO.

And how do we end these days? Dementia. Atrophy. Diabetes and obesity. And we get hit even long before halftime of these 120 years.

Or they oput us into a caretaking home, an d they feed us "food" wirth 1,20 a day, and then we wonder why people in there are so hopelessly depleted in essential micro and macro nutrioents and trace elements so that every little virus casts an extinction verdict - becasue the oi ndustry wnats to seel drugs until the coffin instead of having the elderlxy beignimmunsied by raising their Vitamine D levels beyond 50 ngr/ml - with a vitamine pill worth less than 2.5 cents per day.

Mass murder. Genocide.

If you feel betrayed for your life now, you should ask questions then, dont you think? For exmaple what is it that makes the difference between them Indians who got 120 years old, and us?

Less toxines in the environment, maybe.

Or more appropriate food.

02-01-24, 07:45 PM	#232
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,630 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	@Eichhörnchen, Yes, its difficult if needing to stick with what the supermarket usually offers. And its even worse since it is not a sif the stuff does not taste - it often does taste. Also, they make meat more and more expensive to bring people away from it without being accused of having banned it, and the EU wants to do like this with all animal foodsd and animal prpotein: milk, eggs, chicken, pork - everything animal protein should ebcome unaffordable. Thats why I do not buy organic meat, it costs twice as much than beef from conventional lifestock - and more. And they wan tto make it even much more expensive. At the same time schools and kidnergardenm morer and mroe enforce veganism. The kids must grow, their brains and nerovus systems still develope - and thes ebastards have nothignb better to do than to cut down nutrients that are essential for brain developement. I already know now how this will end, the costs will become visible in elss than a generation, and even already are ovvious in form of many psychological and cognitive disorder that spread in our young generations like a pandemic. We have these wonderful big farming monocultures and oil seeds, you know, and the agricultural lobby wants to make sure that their stuff gets bought by people. These agricultural companies and cereal industries often are proxies of or are linked to the 7th Day Adventist Church, like Kellogs and Graham are, for example. And this sect wants to enforce all people turning vegan, eatoing the garden Eden diet as they call it - they work since 100 years to get there, and bidne nwo has made their goal official health policy in the US, the dietariuan guidelines are fully reflecting their demands now. They also have bought themselves in at the WHO. So, health arguments meet ideolgocial-sectarian conspiracy. Its like a Philip K. Dick novel. On critical food items, however, some things are worse than others, and when it comes to sweetening, this is true twice and three times. At the very top of the red list is high fructose corn syrup, and maltodextrin, followed by the others. Refined white sugar is not worst! Its very bad, absolutely, but a few things are even worse than it. HFCS. Maltodextrin. Glucose corn syrup. And this stuff is in practically everything these days - everything. Also, ingredients that are not exceeding certain vol% of a given package content - must not be declared. A loophole that the industry massively abuses and that the politicians have granted them, like they often do. Tell the voters that you regulated something as demanded, and allow the regulated party to nevertheless escape. ---------------- @Markus, the biggest empire known in history were the Huns/Mongoles. They were strong, fearful people from the Asian steppes and formed the biggest territory any empire ever accumulated. They were fearsome, strong, very resistent to weklanes and desease, and as warriors they were feared and stronger and tougher than the men of the people they haunted and conquered. They lived of meat from their horses, blood of their horses, and milk of their horses. When Thomas Jefferson met Indian chieftains once, and this is documented, he exclaimed afterwards, full of enthusiasm, how huge these men would have been, towering over him by one or one and a half head lengths, he couldn't get his head around it. Now Jefferosn himself was a damn tall fellow, he would have been a baskertball star today before he became president. The white settlers also reported that the Indian men were still hunting buffalo with the young men at the age of 90, 100 and beyond, and that many of them lived to be around 120. In recent years, most anthropologists have stopped the narration that our ancestors prospered when agricultural farming was invented and introduced. Instead it is clear that tribes living a harsh life in desert-like, infertile regions that allowed no farming, were tough and phyisclaly strong, and needed to move around since they depended on animal lifestock they ate and had learned to herd. You can see very often in history on all continents, that where such animal-eating people "collided" with people that had moved to eating cultivated plants that allowed them to live a stationary life, the attackers often were tougher, stronger and the better warriors. The yha dbetter pshyaicla stamina. The plant eaters over time suffered form physicla degewnration. Their body height shrunk. The jawbones shrunk, they had bad teeth that did not find enough space anymore (like with so many modern people today). They got easier sick. They wre not as strong anymore. Heck, even brain size shrunk over the past 6000-12000 years, we have lost around 12-15% of the brain size our ancestors before that time had. A famous field study from almost 100 years ago (I think 1931) compares the Massai to their direct neighbours, the Kikuju. Its a textbook study of such high exemplary value that it often gets quoted. Both tribes lived in the same habitat, so environmental factors did not explain any pohysi8cla differences between them. But their dietary habits did: the Massaid lived of the meat, blood and milk of their cows and buffalo, the Kikuju were vegetarian. The Massai of that time were very high, tall people, muscular, tough, feared warriors with great endurance and stamina. They got rarely sick. The Kikuju were grown much smaller, had smalle rheads, were of lesser physical power, stamina, endurance, and tooth problems and faulty tooth positioning in the jaw bone were frequent. They got easier and more often sick, too. They now did that archeological work in that place the article your link describes. Well, that is one place in this whole wide world, and we know not wiyh the people who lived mtheir ate what they ate. Maybe they had no other choice, no animal food was available. However, that Southamerican indians lived of Quinoa and Amaranth, whcih ahs its benefiots in nutrient content, but we do not know HOW wlel the ylive dof it, hwo their dogestion was, for exmaple. We do nto know if they volunteered for it, or lacked alternatives, had no lifestock. Considering the size of their empires, lackign animals to eat might have been a problem. We do know however that they were small in body height than the ordinary European person back then or today. Note that there is a strong ideological publication bias nowadays in all media to write about how healthy and good and how climate-friendly and how animal friendly vegetarian food is. Its a propaganda war goign on. You read almost never in these media about the nurtient deficiency, the toxic nature of plant seed oils (which get sold to us as espoecialyl halthy...). I rea dmany warnigns of eggs. Eggs! That is hiolarious, but some years ago Taft university rled that the nutriotnal vlaue of candy-saweet breakfats cereals by Kellos were multiple times healthier than eating an egg and a slice of meat! Can one take that serious anymore? We now get frightned that red meat causes cancers (BS, btw.), and the Harvard university is especially infamous now for time and again supporting the war against eating animal protein. The EU now tells us we should get used to eating cultivated insects. I could write a long essay on why that is not really a good idea both regarding health and energy consumption, this idea is as foolish as it sounds on first hear. All this gets firther pushed by the eU under the claim of fightign agaunst CO2 and in the name iof its green deal policies. While the UN says the food production must get inbcrwased by 50-60% until 2050, the EU wants to reduce famrignb ground in Europe - while 30-40% of the potnetiually famrign ground in the whikew world is not beig cuktivate dbecasue it is unaccessibke for mahcienry of more prmjtive menas fo farming. why do we not sow grass, put cows and buffalo on it, and let nature do its thing? That woudl be the most natural food production imaginable. We have done it for thousands of years. Same in Europe where spoils are depleted and almost sterilized. We could renew the soils - by allowing grass and cattle taking care of it. Take just a few years. But no... That is against the inetrests of the cereals lobby. the agricultrurla lobby. The wowener of the mbiog monocultzurss that are such a big damage. The oil seeds indiustry. The sugar industry. They want you to buy that bad stuff so that you get fat and sick. And they want you to then buy their drugs. And the systenm wants you to need hospital treatment. In other words: everybody expects you to generate him profits - at your own cost. The looser in all this is you. You loose in health. In life quality. In labour chances. In income. In social life quality. And in the end: in life expectancy. The meanign of your life is: to generate them endless profits all your existence long. I cannot explain the specific details, but I read that somethign with the telomeres in our genes (that shorten a bit with every celluar replication round and trigger apoptosis once a critical lenght has been reached) allowed biologists to conclude from them the natural life expectncy that humans could enjoyif all goes well: its around 120 years. And there we recall what I said about the Northameircna Indians, that the ylived up to 120 years,a dn went on bufalo hunt with 100 years, so obvipously they did nto sit in a wheelchair the last 50 years of these 120 years. THEY HUNTED BUFFALO. And how do we end these days? Dementia. Atrophy. Diabetes and obesity. And we get hit even long before halftime of these 120 years. Or they oput us into a caretaking home, an d they feed us "food" wirth 1,20 a day, and then we wonder why people in there are so hopelessly depleted in essential micro and macro nutrioents and trace elements so that every little virus casts an extinction verdict - becasue the oi ndustry wnats to seel drugs until the coffin instead of having the elderlxy beignimmunsied by raising their Vitamine D levels beyond 50 ngr/ml - with a vitamine pill worth less than 2.5 cents per day. Mass murder. Genocide. If you feel betrayed for your life now, you should ask questions then, dont you think? For exmaple what is it that makes the difference between them Indians who got 120 years old, and us? Less toxines in the environment, maybe. Or more appropriate food. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 02-01-24 at 08:06 PM.