What Are The Powers That Be Distracting You From Right Now?

“Until yesterday I had always been quietly sceptical of those who claimed that Julian’s treatment amounted to torture – even of Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture – and sceptical of those who suggested he may be subject to debilitating drug treatments. But having attended the trials in Uzbekistan of several victims of extreme torture, and having worked with survivors from Sierra Leone and elsewhere, I can tell you that yesterday changed my mind entirely and Julian exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim brought blinking into the light, particularly in terms of disorientation, confusion, and the real struggle to assert free will through the fog of learned helplessness.

“I had been even more sceptical of those who claimed, as a senior member of his legal team did to me on Sunday night, that they were worried that Julian might not live to the end of the extradition process. I now find myself not only believing it, but haunted by the thought. Everybody in that court yesterday saw that one of the greatest journalists and most important dissidents of our times is being tortured to death by the state, before our eyes. To see my friend, the most articulate man, the fastest thinker, I have ever known, reduced to that shambling and incoherent wreck, was unbearable. Yet the agents of the state, particularly the callous magistrate Vanessa Baraitser, were not just prepared but eager to be a part of this bloodsport. She actually told him that if he were incapable of following proceedings, then his lawyers could explain what had happened to him later. The question of why a man who, by the very charges against him, was acknowledged to be highly intelligent and competent, had been reduced by the state to somebody incapable of following court proceedings, gave her not a millisecond of concern. […]

“The campaign of demonisation and dehumanisation against Julian, based on government and media lie after government and media lie, has led to a situation where he can be slowly killed in public sight, and arraigned on a charge of publishing the truth about government wrongdoing, while receiving no assistance from “liberal” society.

“Unless Julian is released shortly he will be destroyed. If the state can do this, then who is next?”

O Society

Assange in Court

by Craig Murray edited by O Society October 24, 2019

I was deeply shaken while witnessing yesterday’s events in Westminster Magistrates Court. Every decision was railroaded through over the scarcely heard arguments and objections of Assange’s legal team, by a magistrate who barely pretended to be listening.

Before I get on to the blatant lack of fair process, the first thing I must note was Julian’s condition. I was badly shocked by just how much weight my friend has lost, by the speed his hair has receded and by the appearance of premature and vastly accelerated ageing. He has a pronounced limp I have never seen before. Since his arrest he has lost over 15 kg in weight.

But his physical appearance was not as shocking as his mental deterioration. When asked to give his name and date of birth, he struggled visibly over several seconds to…

View original post 2,282 more words

Which Way Out of Neoliberalism: Fascism or Socialism?

A new generation of black misleadership, Symone Sanders and Jay-Z, seeks to take the place of Oprah and Bill Cosby. These are the pawns the fascist plutocracy has long used to maintain oppression.

They turn one race against another, as they turn the middle class against the poor, which means the entire population is not just divided but splintered. There can be no populist revolt for justice and fairness if there is no shared sense of being a public, a single people.

The attack on poor blacks has always been key to this strategy. And that has required the telling of lies so often that they are taken as truth. But let’s be clear. The attack on poor whites has been equally important. The purpose is to keep the masses from realizing they have shared interests and shared enemies.

The Myth of Weak and Broken Black Families
Black Families: “Broken” and “Weak”
Structural Racism and Personal Responsibility
Working Hard, But For What?
Whose Work Counts? Who Gets Counted?
Racism Without Racists: Victimization & Silence

O Society

“The next time you’re bombarded with over-the-top claims about how our country is doomed or the world is coming apart at the seams, brush off the cynics and fearmongers. Because the truth is, if you had to choose any time in the course of human history to be alive, you’d choose this one. Right here in America, right now.”
~ Barack Obama

by Danny Haiphong edited by O Society October 14, 2019

Without self-determination, socialism becomes an economist demand which fails to account for imperial rule.

“Neoliberalism leaves workers competing against each other in a great race to the bottom.”

The conditions of decline which characterize the neoliberal stage of capitalist production worldwide no doubt led to a growth in the scope and influence of fascism in the Western world. In the U.S., fascism manifests as a bipartisan consensus advocating war and austerity, as well as the rise of politically right-wing…

View original post 1,708 more words

George F. Will on Trump and GOP

“…this party of slow-learning careerists might notice the hazards of tethering their careers to a downward-spiraling scofflaw.”

Ouch! These are scathing words from, among conservatives, a highly respected political commentator and public intellectual. Back in the glory days of the Reagan era, the Wall Street Journal described Will as “perhaps the most powerful journalist in America.” Strong praise to match the following strong criticism:

“In 13 months, all congressional Republicans who have not defended Congress by exercising “the constitutional rights of the place” should be defeated. If congressional Republicans continue their genuflections at Trump’s altar, the appropriate 2020 outcome will be a Republican thrashing so severe — losing the House, the Senate and the electoral votes of, say, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina and even Texas — that even this party of slow-learning careerists might notice the hazards of tethering their careers to a downward-spiraling scofflaw.”

Interestingly, he had a book published a few months ago, The Conservative Sensibility, and he apparently didn’t discuss Donald Trump at all. When asked about this, he cleverly responded that neither did he mention Doris Day. The implication was that the two were comparable in deserving no inclusion in a book about conservatism.

I suspect Will is hoping, after a period in outer darkness, the GOP might return to its former greatness (and certainly not the greatness Trump speaks of). He comes across as a Madisonian neocon, the school of respectability politics and paternalistic elites, none of which describes Trump of course.

The spiraling president adds self-impeachment to his repertoire
by George F. Will

Aspasia Greatest Philosopher of Antiquity?

“In truth, though, Athens’ most important philosopher was… ASPASIA, Pericles’ 2nd wife. She wrote Pericles’ most important discourses, invented the concept of “OPEN SOCIETY”, and the so-called “SOCRATIC METHOD”.

“Like Poincaré with Einstein, she was Socrates’ teacher. However, Socrates didn’t hide his debt and admiration!…

“According to Plutarch, Aspasia’s house became THE intellectual center in Athens, attracting the most prominent writers and thinkers, including the (then baby) philosopher Socrates. Aspasia is mentioned in the writings of Plato, Aristophanes, Xenophon, inter Alia…

“Aspasia’s role in history provides a crucial hint to the understanding of the women of ancient Greece. Powerful, but hidden. Very little is known about women in her lifetime (except Socrates reveals he learned his theory of love… “Platonic Love”… from another expert woman, widely viewed as a philosopher. In “Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition”, Madeleine Mary Henry, Chair and Associate Professor of Classical Studies said: “To ask questions about Aspasia’s life is to ask questions about half of humanity.””

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

What if we got the history of thought wrong? 

What if we present as very important anti-democratic plutocratic cockroaches such as Plato or Socrates, not to speak of the pro-Macedonian agent known as Aristotle?

What if we don’t even understand the concept of great idea, let alone how one gives birth to it, let alone how a society generates great idea, and most societies, none?

Ideas are more or less significant. The most significant thinker is the one who thinks the highest significance first.

The case of Aspasia and her great ideas is striking. The lack of appreciation she received is not just an attack on all women, thus humanity, but also an attack against the all-important concept of spearhead of thought. Gedankenspitze (here, I created a German word! Did even Nietzsche do that? Let all those who accused me of Germanophobia shrink back in their tint slimy holes…)

I…

View original post 957 more words

Sea Level Rise Accelerating: A Nonlinear Consequence Of CO2 Rise

“It is nearly amusing how the soporific forecasts of the scientific community clash with reality… Such a rate of melting was not expected by (government fed) specialists, at least officially, for another 50 years…… Conventional climate science is in denial about the imminent collapse into the sea of much of Antarctica, as professionals don’t want to sound too alarmist, lest they lose their jobs.”

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

The CO2 catastrophe will entail all sorts of nonlinear reactions from nature. An example is Sea Level Rise, which is accelerating faster than so-called “experts” expected. So forests are dying: 

The New York Times describes the “Ghosts Forests” of the East Coast of the US, as sea level goes up there at the alarming clip of 5 millimeter per year. The reason for that accelerated rise was long predicated by those who understand climate nonlinearity better: as Greenland melts, its cold, sweet, lighter waters act as a lid on top of the Gulf Stream, and tend to make it back up. (Sweet Swede Greta Thunberg mentioned several nonlinear effects at the UN. That makes that 16 year old child more significantly cognizant than the top climate panel, the IPCC… of a couple of years ago; IPCC took linearity more seriously only this year. They should have read yours…

View original post 1,066 more words

Moderation Trolls

I’ve long been irritated by the ‘moderation’ trolls. This is seen in those who warn against too much democracy and anything else along these lines. Instead, they argue, we need moderation. Fuck that shit. What are they trying to moderate? And who declared them to be the moderators, the gatekeepers?

There is only democracy and authoritarianism, freedom and unfreedom. There is no moderation between the two. At no point in human existence, more recently or further back, has there ever been an excess of democracy, an out-of-control overabundance of popular will and self-governance. These same idiots are made uncomfortable by the ‘antifa’ and so scapegoat them. People who make these arguments can’t be that stupid and ignorant, can they? Antifa means anti-fascist. If you aren’t against fascism, you are for it. There is no other option, no third way.

They argue for some mythical center when in reality they are the extremists. I see this all the time among pseuod-liberal Democrats who claim to be the middle. But when you look at actual public opinion, these people are sometimes far on the political right. Going by their absurd claims, we’d have to conclude that the majority of Americans are radical left-wingers. And if that really is the case, then radical leftism is the norm and not the extreme. How is being ruled by an authoritarian elite, however paternalistic, supposed to be somehow moderate?

I see the same thing in the dietary world. Experts will say eat balanced meals. But this is in the context of a severely fucked up food system where the very concept of ‘balance’ has become imbalanced. In research, 40% of calories as carbs is often considered low-carb, even though 40% is the highest extreme typically seen among hunter-gatherers. That is not normal, by historical standards or evolutionary standards or biological standards.

Might this have something to do with why 88% of Americans are metabolically unfit, primarily caused by carbohydrates, at a time when we are being hit by one of the greatest health epidemics ever seen, just maybe? People die all the time from heavy carb consumption. Do we see the same extreme pattern of disease with those who eat lots of non-starchy vegetables, meat, fish, eggs, dairy, and animal fat but without the carbs? No. So, what’s up with this moderation bullshit?

I’m not against moderation on principle. But the highly controlled narrative of public debate has become so disconnected from reality that the rhetoric of moderation has become meaningless and sometimes outright dangerous. Those promoting it often do so in defense of extremism. That is what reactionaries do. They co-opt language to deceive and manipulate.

When someone criticizes the demands for justice, public health, or whatever with rhetoric of ‘moderation’, immediately look at them with mistrust. Whether they are a direct threat or merely repeating the idiot talk of others, they are part of the problem. No one thinks moderation makes sense with drug addiction or sex slavery, lead toxicity or gang violence. We are living an era of extremism in corruption and disease. Do we really want to moderate into the middle of the problem? No, we don’t.

Eat Beef and Bacon!

“The evidence is just not there on red/processed meat. It’s also just not there on 2-3 portions of low-fat dairy, 30g fiber, 5-a-day, 14-21 alcohol units, 8 glasses of water… just numbers plucked out of the air.”
~ Dr. Zoe Harcombe, PhD (professor of public health nutrition)

We’ve always known that many healthy and long-lived societies ate a lot of meat. In fact, the single most longest living society, Hong Kong, eats the most meat in the world. It’s been well established in Eastern research that for Asians more meat correlates to better health outcomes.

In the West, the famous Roseto Penssylvanians also were great consumers of red meat and saturated fat. Like traditional Mediterraneans, they ate more lard than olive oil (olive oil was too expensive for everyday cooking and too much in demand for other uses: fuel, salves, etc). Amont long-lived societies, one of the few commonalities was lard, as pigs are adaptable creatures that can be raised almost anywhere.

The past correlations in some Western research showing the opposite were probably spurious data based on confounding factors such as the healthy user effect. Tell people that meat is unhealthy and then everyone who is healthy will avoid meat, but that tells one nothing about causation. Healthy people in general are higher in conscientiousness and tend to do whatever they are told is healthy, not only in terms of diet but also regular exercise and medical checkups.

We’ve also known for a while that Ancel Keys’ study showing a correlation to saturated fat was a weak link. When the data was re-analyzed, sugar showed a stronger correlation than saturated fat and some other factors showed a stronger correlation than both. It never really made sense to blame meat and animal fats, as these were not increasing in the diet as certain diseases were increasing. The only foods, besides fruits and vegetables, that increased during that period were refined starches, added sugar, and seed oils.

Red meat and saturated fat specifically had been on the decline in the American diet for decades when Ancel Keys began his research. There never was a logical reason for scapegoating these foods. Evidence-based healthcare isn’t always as evidence-based as the experts have led us to believe. And having got it wrong so severely, possibly having caused harm and shortened lives to hundreds of millions of people in the Western world, how are they going to save face and maintain their authority while admitting they gave bad advice for more than a half century? They can’t.

So, organizations like the AHA and ADA have been slowly and quietly backtracking their recommendations in moving them in the direction of what their critics have been saying for decades (Slow, Quiet, and Reluctant Changes to Official Dietary Guidelines; & American Diabetes Association Changes Its Tune). They’re hoping no one notices or calls them out on this covert admission of guilt. But with ever more research piling up in challenging their credibility, leading experts are feeling defensive and so have been lashing out.

Even the media has a hard time reporting fairly on the topic, as they spent so many decades contributing to the confusion. For instance, most mainstream ‘journalism’ keeps blaming cow farts for climate change which is a ludicrous and unscientific allegation (Carnivore Is Vegan). Why are so obsessed with animal foods when sugar is possibly the single greatest dietary threat we face? And why do we narrowly focus on diet while ignoring even more massive factors such as lead toxicity? It would be nice to finally have an informed and honest public debate about public health.

* * *

Where is the Beef? The 6 Papers That Turned the World Up-Side-Down
by Angela A. Stanton

The latest flip-flop on red meat uses best science in place of best guesses
by Nina Teicholz

The New Guidelines On Meat Are Exposing the Fault Lines In Nutrition Advice
by Dr. Anthony Pearson

Is eating beef healthy? The new fight raging in nutrition science, explained.
by Julia Belluz

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.
by Gina Kolata

Avoiding red or processed meat doesn’t seem to give health benefits
by Clare Wilson

Health, Happiness, and Exercise

I’m unsurprised that 10,000 steps was a random number selected for marketing reasons. Like so much else, it never was backed by any scientific evidence. I agree that it doesn’t take that much physical activity to promote health. The basic thing is to simply not sit on your butt all day. Anything that gets you up and moving throughout the day will probably be a vast improvement over a sedentary lifestyle. By the way, I think it goes without saying (or should) that mental health is closely linked to physical health, far from being limited to exercise. It seems common sense that physical health is the causal factor. But even assuming this, what would be the exact line of causation?

Then again, this entire approach of explanation is based on an assumption. All we know is that healthier people move more than unhealthy people. But we haven’t yet proven that merely getting up and going for a walk or whatever is the direct cause in this equation. It’s possible that it’s simply part of the healthy user effect or maybe the happy user effect (just made up that last one). People seeking better health or those already feeling good from better health are going to exercise more, whether or not movement by itself is the main factor to get credit.

From personal experience, improving health (lowing weight, increasing energy, and eliminating severe depression) by way of low-carb/keto diet was a major contributing factor to feeling more motivated to push my exercise to the next level. I can exercise while in poor physical and mental health, but it’s easier to first eliminate the basic level of problems. I always feel bad when I see overweight people jogging, presumably with the hope of losing weight (exercise didn’t help me lose weight and seems of limited benefit to most people in this regard). I’d suggest starting with dietary and other lifestyle changes. Exercise is great in a healthy state, although in an unhealthy state one might end up doing more harm than good, from spraining an ankle to having a heart attack.

It’s highly context-dependent. For simplicity’s sake, diet will probably have a greater impact on mood than exercise, despite how awesome exercise can be. After feeling better, exercise will be less of a struggle and so require less force of willpower to overcome the apathy and discomfort. I’m all about going the route of what is easiest. Life is hard enough as is. There is no point in trying to punish ourselves into good health, as if we are fallen sinners requiring bodily mortification. If one is just starting out an exercise program, I’d say go easy with it. Less is better. Push yourself over time, but there is no reason to rush it. Exercise should be enjoyable. If it is causing you pain and stress, you’re doing it wrong. A stroll through the woods will do your health far more good than sprinting on a treadmill until you collapse.

Don’t worry about counting steps, in my humble opinion, as you shouldn’t worry about counting calories, carbs, ketones, or Weight Watcher points (yes, I realize Westerners are obsessed with numbers and love the feeling of counting anything and everything; who am I to deny anyone this pleasure?). It easily becomes an unhealthy moralistic mindset of constant self-control and self-denial that can undermine a natural good feeling of health and well-being. That is unless you’re dealing with a specific health protocol for a serious medical condition (e.g., keto diet for epileptic seizures) or maybe, in extreme cases, you need the structure to achieve a particular goal. I’m just saying be careful to not go overboard with the endless counting of one thing or another. If counting is helpful, great! Just maybe think of it as a transitional stage, not a permanent state of struggle.

Sometimes rules initially help people when their health has gotten so bad that they’ve lost an intuitive sense of what it feels like to do what is healthy. I get that. But regaining that intuitive, not just intuitive but visceral, sense of feeling good in one’s body should be the ultimate goal — just being healthy and happy as one’s natural birthright (I know, a crazy radical idea; I spent too much time in the positive-and-abundance-thinking of practical Christianity). Experiment for yourself (N=1) and find out works for you. If nothing else, start off with a short walk every once in a while or heck just stand up from your desk and get the blood flowing. Keep it simple. Maybe it isn’t as hard as it first seems. Don’t overthink it. Relearn that childlike sense of enjoying the world around you, immersed in the experience of your own body. Don’t just exercise. Go play. Run around a field with a child. Have a chat while walking. Simply appreciate the state of being alive.

* * *

by Amanda Mull, The Atlantic

“It turns out the original basis for this 10,000-step guideline was really a marketing strategy,” she explains. “In 1965, a Japanese company was selling pedometers and they gave it a name that, in Japanese, means the 10,000-step meter.”

Based on conversations she’s had with Japanese researchers, Lee believes that name was chosen for the product because the character for “10,000” looks sort of like a man walking. As far as she knows, the actual health merits of that number have never been validated by research. […]

“The basic finding was that at 4,400 steps per day, these women had significantly lower mortality rates compared to the least active women,” Lee explains. If they did more, their mortality rates continued to drop, until they reached about 7,500 steps, at which point the rates leveled out. Ultimately, increasing daily physical activity by as little as 2,000 steps — less than a mile of walking — was associated with positive health outcomes for the elderly women.” […]

Because her study was observational, it’s impossible to assert causality: The women could have been healthier because they stepped more, or they could have stepped more because they were already healthier. Either way, Lee says, it’s clear that regular, moderate physical activity is a key element of a healthy life, no matter what that looks like on an individual level.

“I’m not saying don’t get 10,000 steps. If you can get 10,000 steps, more power to you,” explains Lee. “But, if you’re someone who’s sedentary, even a very modest increase brings you significant health benefits.”

But since happiness can be incredibly difficult to define, I’d call these odds very interesting but not necessarily conclusive. Chen and colleagues acknowledge that more research is needed to prove whether exercise causeshappiness, or if other factors are involved. As just one example, it could be that exercise makes us healthier (which is well established by science) and being healthier is what makes us happy. […]

Not as much research has been done whether happiness is a key to motivating people to exercise. But one 2017 study published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine certainly suggests as much.

Over 11 years, nearly 10,000 people over age 50 were asked about their frequency and intensity of physical activity, at work and otherwise. Those with higher psychological well-being (a proxy for happiness and optimism) at the start of the study had higher levels of physical activity over the next decade. Also, those who started out happy and active were more likely to stay active.

“Results from this study suggest that higher levels of psychological well-being may precede increased physical activity,” said Julia Boehm, a researcher at Chapman University and lead author of the study.

In very preliminary results of my Happiness Survey for The Happiness Quest,regular exercise is emerging as a theme among those who self-report as being the happiest. However, the survey is self-selecting, the numbers are as-yet small, and the happiest respondents also associate strongly with other traits and habits, so at best the responses are just another possible indicator of an association between exercise and happiness, not a cause-and-effect relationship, and no indication in which direction any effect may flow. […]

I can only conclude, despite the years-on, years-off nature of my exercise routine, that exercise puts me in a good mood. And when I’m in a good mood, I tend to exercise more. In many ways, it matters little which is the cause and which is the effect. And I’ll bet it’s simply a virtuous circle (and, in those off years, a vicious spiral).

Hubris of Nutritionism

There is a fundamental disagreement over diets. It is about one’s philosophical position on humanity and the world, about the kind of society one aspires to. Before getting to nutritionism, let me explain my present understanding that has developed from what I’ve learned. It’s all quite fascinating. There is a deeper reason why, for example, I see vegetarianism as potentially healthy but not veganism (see debate in comments section of my recent post A Fun Experiment), and that distinction will be central in my following argument. There have been some, not many, traditional societies that were vegetarian or rather semi-vegetarian for millennia (e.g., India; see specific comment in the above linked post), but veganism didn’t exist until the Seventh Day Adventists invented it in the late 19th century. Few people know this history. It’s not exactly something most vegan advocates, other than Adventists themselves, would want to mention.

Veganism was a modernization of ancient Greek Galenic theory of humors, having originally been incorporated into mainstream Christian thought during feudalism, especially within the monastic tradition of abstinence and self-denial but also applied to the population at large through food laws. A particular Galenic argument is that, by limiting red meat and increasing plant foods, there would be a suppression or weakening of libido/virility as hot-bloodedness that otherwise threatens to ‘burn’ up the individual. (The outline of this ideology remains within present dietary thought in the warning that too much animal protein will up-regulate mTOR and over-activate IGF-1 which, as it is asserted, will shorten lifespan. Many experts such as Dr. Steven Gundry in The Longevity Paradox, biological anthropologist Stephen Le in 100 Million Years of Food, etc have been parroting Galenic thought without any awareness of the origin of the ideas they espouse. See my posts High vs Low Protein and Low-Carb Diets On The Rise.) Also, it was believed this Galenic strategy would help control problematic behaviors like rowdiness, the reason in the Middle ages that red meat sometimes was banned prior to Carnival (about dietary systems as behavioral manipulation and social control, see Food and Faith in Christian Culture ed. by Ken Albala and Trudy Eden and some commentary about that book at my posts Western Individuality Before the Enlightenment Age and The Crisis of Identity; for similar discussion, also check out The Agricultural Mind, “Yes, tea banished the fairies.”, Autism and the Upper Crust, and Diets and Systems). For the purposes of Christian societies, this has been theologically reinterpreted and reframed. Consider the attempt to protect against the moral sin of masturbation as part of the Adventist moral reform, such that modern cereal was originally formulated specifically for an anti-masturbation campaign — the Breakfast of Champions!

High protein vs low protein is an old conflict, specifically in terms of animal meat and even more specifically as red meat. It’s more of a philosophical or theological disagreement than a scientific debate. The anti-meat argument would never hold such a central position in modern dietary thought if not for the influence of heavily Christianized American culture. It’s part of Christian theology in general. Gary Taubes discusses it in how dieting gets portrayed as the sins of gluttony and sloth: “Of all the dangerous ideas that health officials could have embraced while trying to understand why we get fat, they would have been hard-pressed to find one ultimately more damaging than calories-in/calories-out. That it reinforces what appears to be so obvious – obesity as the penalty for gluttony and sloth – is what makes it so alluring. But it’s misleading and misconceived on so many levels that it’s hard to imagine how it survived unscathed and virtually unchallenged for the last fifty years” (Why We Get Fat). Read mainstream dietary advice and you’ll quickly hear this morality-drenched worldview of fallen humanity and Adam’s sinful body. This goes along with the idea of “no pain, no gain” (an ideology I came to question in seeing how simple and easy are low-carb diets, specifically with how ketosis eliminates endless hunger and cravings while making fat melt away with little effort, not to mention how my decades of drug-resistant and suicidally-prone depression also disappeared, something many others have experienced; so it turns out that for many people great gain can be had with no pain at all). The belief has been that we must suffer and struggle to attain goodness (with physical goodness being an outward sign of moral goodness), such that the weak flesh of the mortal frame must be punished with bodily mortification (i.e., dieting and exercise) to rid it of its inborn sinful nature. Eating meat is a pleasurable temptation in nurturing the ‘fallen’ body and so it must be morally wrong. This Christian theology has become so buried in our collective psyche, even in science itself, that we no longer are able to recognize it for what it is. And because of historical amnesia, we are unaware of where these mind viruses come from.

It’s not only that veganism is a modern ideology in a temporal sense, as a product of post-Enlightenment fundamentalist theology and its secularization. More importantly, it is a broader expression of modern ways of thinking and perceiving, of being in and relating to the world, including but far from limited to how it modernizes and repurposes ancient philosophy (Galen wasn’t advocating veganism, religious or secularized, that is for sure). Besides the crappy Standard American Diet (SAD), veganism is the only other diet entirely dependent on industrialization by way of chemical-laden monoculture, high-tech food processing, and global trade networks — and hence enmeshed in the web of big ag, big food, big oil, and big gov (all of this, veganism and the industrialization that made it possible, surely was far beyond Galen’s imagination). To embrace veganism, no matter how well-intentioned, is to be fully complicit in modernity and all that goes with it — not that it makes individual vegans bad people, as to varying degrees all of us are complicit in this world we are born into. Still, veganism stands out for, within that ideological framework, there is no other choice outside of modern industrialization.

At the heart of veganism, is a techno-utopian vision and technocratic impulse. It’s part of the push for a plant-based diet that began with the Seventh Day Adventists, most infamously Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who formed the foundation of modern American nutritional research and dietary recommendations (see the research of Bellinda Fettke who made this connection: Ellen G White and Medical EvangelismThou Shalt not discuss Nutrition ‘Science’ without understanding its driving force, and Lifestyle Medicine … where did the meat go?). I don’t say this to be mean or dismissive of vegans. If one insists on being a vegan, there are better ways to do it. But it will never be an optimal diet, neither for the individual nor for the environment (and, yes, industrial agriculture does kill large numbers of animals, whether or not the vegan has to see it in the grocery store or on their plate; see my post Carnivore Is Vegan: if veganism is defined by harming and killing the fewest lives, if veganism is dependent on industrialization that harms and kills large numbers of lives, and if potentially carnivore is the least dependent on said industrialization, then we are forced to come the conclusion that, by definition, “carnivore is vegan”). Still, if vegans insist, they should be informed and honest in embracing industrialization as a strength, rather than hiding it as a weakness, in overtly arguing for techno-utopian and technocratic solutions in the Enlightenment fashion of Whiggish progressivism. Otherwise, this unacknowledged shadow side of veganism remains an Achille’s heel that eventually will take down veganism as a movement when the truth is finally revealed and becomes public knowledge. I don’t care if veganism continues in its influence, but if vegans care about advocating their moral vision they better do some soul-searching about what exactly they are advocating and for what reason and to what end.

Veganism is not limited to being unique as the only specific diet that is fully industrialized (SAD isn’t comparable because it isn’t a specific diet, since one could argue that veganism as an industrialized diet is one variety of SAD). More importantly, what makes veganism unique is its ethical impetus. That is how it originated within the righteously moralizing theology of Adventism (to understand the moral panic of that era, read my post The Crisis of Identity). The Adventist Ellen G. White’s divine visions from God preceded the health arguments. And even those later health arguments within Adventism were predicated upon a moralistic hypothesis of human nature and reality, that is to say theology. Veganism has maintained the essence of that theology of moral health, even though the dietary ideology was quickly sanitized and secularized. Adventists like Dr. Kellogg realized that this new kind of plant-based diet would not spread unless it was made to seem natural and scientific, a common strategy of fundamentalist apologetics such as pseudo-scientific Creationism (I consider this theologically-oriented rhetoric to be a false framing; for damn sure, veganism is not more natural since it is one of the least natural diets humanity was ever attempted). So, although the theology lost its emphasis, one can still sense this religious-like motivation and righteous zeal that remains at the heart of veganism, more than a mere diet but an entire social movement and political force.

Let’s return to the health angle and finally bring in nutritionism. The only way a vegan diet is possible at all is through the industrial agriculture that eliminated the traditional farming practices, including an entire lifestyle as part of farming communities, that was heavily dependent on animal husbandry and pasturage (similar to how fundamentalist religion such as Adventism is also a product of modernity, an argument made by Karen Armstrong; modern fundamentalism is opposed to traditional religion in the way that, as Corey Robin explains, reactionary conservatism is opposed to the ancien regime it attacked and replaced). This is the industrial agriculture that mass produces plant foods through monoculture and chemicals (that, by the way, destroys ecosystems and kills the soil). And on top of that, vegans would quickly die of malnutrition if not for the industrial production of supplements and fortified foods to compensate for the immense deficiencies of their diet. This is based on an ideology of nutritionism, that as clever apes we can outsmart nature, that humanity is separate from and above nature — this is the main point I’m making here, that veganism is unnatural to the human condition formed under millions of years of hominid evolution. This isn’t necessarily a criticism from a Christian perspective since it is believed that the human soul ultimately isn’t at home in this world, but it is problematic when this theology is secularized and turned into pseudo-scientific dogma. This further disconnects us from the natural world and from our own human nature. Hence, veganism is very much a product of modernity and all of its schisms and dissociations, very much seen in American society of the past century or so. Of course, the Adventists want the human soul to be disconnected from the natural world and saved from the fallen nature of Adam’s sin. As for the rest of us who aren’t Adventists, we might have a different view on the matter. This is definitely something atheist or pagan vegans should seriously consider and deeply contemplate. We should all think about how the plant-based and anti-meat argument has come to dominate mainstream thought. Will veganism and industrialization save us? Is that what we want to put our faith in? Is that faith scientifically justified?

It’s not that I’m against plant-based diets in general. I’ve been vegetarian. And when I was doing a paleo diet, I ate more vegetables than I had ever done in my life, far more than most vegetarians. I’m not against plants themselves based on some strange principle. It’s specifically veganism that I’m concerned about. Unlike vegetarianism, there is no way to do veganism with traditional, sustainable, and restorative farming practices. Vegetarianism, omnivory, and carnivory are all fully compatible in the possibility of eliminating industrial agriculture, including factory farming. That is not the case with veganism, a diet that is unique in its place in the modern world. Not all plant-based diets are the same. Veganism is entirely different from plant-heavy diets such as vegetarianism and paleo that also allow animal foods (also, consider the fact that any diet other than carnivore is “plant-based”, a somewhat meaningless label). That is no small point since plant foods are limited in seasonality in all parts of the world, whereas most animal foods are not. If a vegetarian wanted, they could live fairly far north and avoid out-of-season plant foods shipped in from other countries simply by eating lots of eggs and dairy (maybe combined with very small amounts of what few locally-grown plant foods were traditionally and pre-industrially stored over winter: nuts, apples, fermented vegetables, etc; or maybe not even that since, technically, a ‘vegetarian’ diet could be ‘carnivore’ in only eating eggs and dairy). A vegetarian could be fully locavore. A vegan could not, at least not in any Western country, although a vegan near the equator might be able to pull off a locavore diet as long as they could rely upon local industrial agriculture, which at least would eliminate the harm from mass transportation, but it still would be an industrial-based diet with all the problems, including mass suffering and death, that entails.

Veganism in entirely excluding animal foods (and excluding insect foods such as honey) does not allow this option of a fully natural way of eating, both local and seasonal without any industrialization. Even in warmer climes amidst lush foliage, a vegan diet was never possible and never practiced prior to industrialization. Traditional communities, surrounded by plant foods or not, have always found it necessary to include animal and insect foods to survive and thrive. Hunter-gatherers living in the middle of dense jungles (e.g., Piraha) typically get most of their calories from animal foods, as long as they maintain access to their traditional hunting grounds and fishing waters, and as long as poaching and environmental destruction or else hunting laws haven’t disrupted their traditional foodways. The closest to a more fully plant-based diet among traditional people was found among Hindus in India, but even there they unintentionally (prior to chemical insecticides) included insects and insect eggs in their plant foods while intentionally allowing individuals during fertile phases of life to eat meat. So, even traditional (i.e., pre-industrial) Hindus weren’t entirely and strictly vegetarian, much less vegan (see my comment at my post A Fun Experiment), but still high quality eggs and dairy can go a long way toward nourishment, as many healthy traditional societies included such foods, especially dairy from pasture-raised animals (consider Weston A. Price’s early 20th century research of healthy traditional communities; see my post Health From Generation To Generation).

Anyway, one basic point is that plant-based diet is not necessarily and always identical to veganism, in that other plant-based diets exist with various forms of animal foods. This is a distinction many vegan advocates want to confound in muddying the water of public debate. In discussing the just released documentary The Game Changers, Paul Kita writes that it “repeatedly pits a vegan diet against a diet that includes meat. The film does this to such an extent that you slowly realize that “plant-based” is just a masquerade for “vegan.” Either you eat animal products and suffer the consequences or avoid animal products and thrive, the movie argues.” (This New Documentary Says Meat Will Kill You. Here’s Why It’s Wrong.). That is a false dichotomy, a forced choice driven by an ideological-driven agenda. Kita makes a simple point that challenges this entire frame: “Except that there’s another choice: Eat more vegetables” Or simply eat less industrial foods that have been industrially grown, industrially processed, and/or industrially transported — basically, don’t eat heavily processed crap, from either meat or plants (specifically refined starches, added sugar, and vegetable oils) but also don’t eat the unhealthy (toxic and nutrient-depleted) produce of industrial agriculture, that is to say make sure to eat locally and in season. But that advice also translates as: Don’t be vegan. That isn’t the message vegan advocates want you to hear.

Dietary ideologies embody social, political, and economic ideologies, sometimes as all-encompassing cultural worldviews. They can shape our sense of identity and reality, what we perceive as true, what we believe is desirable, and what we imagine is possible. It goes further than that, in fact. Diets can alter our neurocognitive development and so potentially alter the way we think and feel. This is one way mind viruses could quite literally parasitize our brains and come to dominate a society, which I’d argue is what has brought our own society to this point of mass self-harm through dietary dogma of pseudo-scientific “plant-based” claims of health (with possibly hundreds of millions of people who have been harmed and had their lives cut short). A diet is never merely a diet. And we are all prone to getting trapped in ideological systems. In my criticisms of veganism as a diet, that doesn’t make vegans as individuals bad people. And I don’t wish them any ill will, much less failure in their dietary health. But I entirely oppose the ideological worldview and social order that, with conscious intention or not, they are promoting. I have a strong suspicion that the world that vegans are helping to create is not a world I want to live in. It is not their beautiful liberal dream that I criticize and worry about. I’m just not so sure that the reality will turn out to be all that wonderful. So far, the plant-based agenda doesn’t seem to be working out all that well. Americans eat more whole grains and legumes, vegetables and fruits than ever before since data was kept and yet the health epidemic continues to worsen (see my post Malnourished Americans). It was never rational to blame public health concerns on meat and animal fat.

Maybe I’m wrong about veganism and the ultimate outcome of their helping to shape the modern world. Maybe technological innovation and progress will transform and revolutionize industrial agriculture and food processing, the neoliberal trade system and capitalist market in a beneficial way for all involved, for the health and healing of individuals and the whole world. Maybe… but I’m not feeling confident enough to bet the fate of future generations on what, to me, seems like a flimsy promise of vegan idealism borne out of divine visions and theological faith. More simply, veganism doesn’t seem all that healthy on the most basic of levels. No diet that doesn’t support health for the individual will support health for society, as society is built on the functioning of humans. That is the crux of the matter. To return to nutritionism, that is the foundation of veganism — the argument that, in spite of all of the deficiencies of veganism and other varieties of the modern industrial diet, we can simply supplement and fortify the needed nutrients and all will be well. To my mind, that seems like an immense leap of faith. Adding some nutrients back into a nutrient-depleted diet is better than nothing, but comes nowhere close to the nutrition of traditional whole foods. If we have to supplement the deficiencies of a diet, that diet remains deficient and we are merely covering up the worst aspects of it, what we are able to most obviously observe and measure. Still, even with those added vitamins, minerals, cofactors, etc, it doesn’t follow that the body is getting all that it needs for optimal health. In traditional whole foods, there are potentially hundreds or thousands of compounds, most of which have barely been researched or not researched at all. There are certain health conditions that require specific supplements. Sure, use them when necessary, as we are not living under optimal conditions of health in general. But when anyone and everyone on a particular diet is forced to supplement to avoid serious health decline as is the case with veganism, there is a serious problem with that diet.

It’s not exactly that I disagree with the possible solution vegans are offering to this problem, as I remain open to future innovative progress. I’m not a nostalgic reactionary and romantic revisionist seeking to turn back the clock to re-create a past that never existed. I’m not, as William F. Buckley jr. put it, “someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop”. Change is great — I have nothing against it. And I’m all for experimenting. That’s not where I diverge from the “plant-based” vision of humanity’s salvation. Generally speaking, vegans simply ignore the problem I’ve detailed or pretend it doesn’t exist. They believe that such limitations don’t apply to them. That is a very modern attitude coming from a radically modern diet and the end result would be revolutionary in remaking humanity, a complete overturning of what came before. It’s not to be obsessed with the past, to believe we are limited to evolutionary conditions and historical precedence. But ignoring the past is folly. Our collective amnesia about the traditional world keeps getting us into trouble. We’ve nearly lost all traces of what health once meant, the basic level of health that used to be the birthright of all humans.

My purpose here is to create a new narrative. It isn’t vegans and vegetarians against meat-eaters. The fact of the matter is most Americans eat more plant foods than animal foods, in following this part of dietary advice from the AHA, ADA, and USDA (specifically eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes than ever before measured since data has been kept). When snacking, it is plant foods (crackers, potato chips, cookies, donuts, etc) that we gorge on, not animal foods. Following Upton Sinclair’s writing of The Jungle, the average intake of red meat went on a decline. And since the 1930s, Americans have consumed more industrial seed oils than animal fat. “American eats only about 2oz of red meat per day,” tweets Dr. Shawn Baker, “and consumes more calories from soybean oil than beef!” Even total fat hasn’t increased but remained steady with the only change in the ratio of what kinds of fats, that is to say more industrial seed oils. It’s true that most Americans aren’t vegan, but what they share with vegans is an industrialized diet that is “plant-based”. To push the American diet further in this direction would hardly be a good thing. And it would require ever greater dependence on the approach of nutritionism, of further supplementation and fortification as Americans increasingly become malnourished. That is no real solution to the problem we face.

Instead of scapegoating meat and animal fat, we should return to the traditional American diet or else some other variant of the traditional human diet. The fact of the matter is historically Americans ate massive amounts of meat and, at the time, they were known as the healthiest population around. Meat-eating Americans in past centuries towered over meat-deprived Europeans. And those Americans, even the poor, were far healthier than their demographic counterparts elsewhere in the civilized and increasingly industrialized world. The United States, one of the last Western countries to be fully industrialized and urbanized, was one of the last countries to see the beginning of a health epidemic. The British noticed the first signs of physical decline in the late 1800s, whereas Americans didn’t clearly see this pattern until World War II. With this in mind, it would be more meaningful to speak of animal-based diets, including vegetarianism that allows dairy and eggs. This would be far more meaningful than grouping together supposed “plant-based” diets. Veganism is worlds apart from vegetarianism. Nutritionally speaking, vegetarianism has more in common with the paleo diet or even carnivore diet than with veganism, the latter being depleted of essential nutrients from animal foods (fat-soluble vitamins, EPA, DHA, DPA, choline, cholesterol, etc; yes, we sicken and die without abundant cholesterol in our diet, the reason dementia and other forms of neurocognitive decline are a common symptom of statins in lowering cholesterol levels). To entirely exclude all animal foods is a category unto itself, a category that didn’t exist and was unimaginable until recent history.

* * *

Nutritionism
by Gyorgy Scrinin

In Defense of Food
by Michael Pollan

Vegan Betrayal
by Mara Kahn

The Vegetarian Myth
by Lierre Keith

Mike Mutzel:

On the opposite side of the spectrum, the vegans argue that now we have the technologies like B12, synthetic b12, we can get DHA from algae. So it’s a beautiful time to be be vegan because we don’t need to rely upon animals for these compounds. What would you say to that argument?

Paul Saladino:

I would say that that’s a vast oversimplification of the sum total of human nutrition to think that, if we can get synthetic B12 and synthetic DHA, we’re getting everything in an animal. It’s almost like this reductionist perspective, in my opinion.

I’ve heard some people say that it doesn’t matter what you eat. It’s all about calories in and calories out, and then you can just take a multivitamin for your minerals and vitamins. And I always bristle at that I think that is so reductionist. You really think you’ve got it all figured out that you can just take one multivitamin and your calories and that is the same as real food?

That to me is just a travesty of an intellectual hypothesis or intellectual position to take because that’s clearly not the case. We know that animal foods are much more than the reductionist vitamins and minerals that are in them. And they are the structure or they are the matrix they are the amino acids… they are the amino acid availability… they are the cofactors. And to imagine that you can substitute animal foods with B12 and DHA is just a very scary position for me.

I think this is an intellectual error that we make over and over as humans in our society and this is a broader context… I think that we are smart and because we have had some small victories in medicine and nutrition and health. We’ve made scanning electron microscopes and we’ve understood quarks. I think that we’ve gotten a little too prideful and we imagine that as humans we can outsmart natural the natural world, that we can outsmart nature. And that may sound woo-woo, but I think it’s pretty damn difficult to outsmart 3 million years of natural history and evolution. And any time we try to do that I get worried.

Whether it’s peptides, whether it’s the latest greatest drug, whether it’s the latest greatest hormone or hormone combination, I think you are messing with three million years of the natural world’s wisdom. You really think you’re smarter than that? Just wait just wait, just wait, you’ll see. And to reduce animal foods to B12 and DHA, that’s a really really bad idea.

And as we’ve been talking about all those plant foods that you’re eating on a vegan diet are gonna come with tons of plants toxins. So yes, I think that we are at a time in human history when you can actually eat all plants and not get nutritional deficiencies in the first year or two because you can supplement the heck out of it, right? You can get… but, but… I mean, the list goes on.

Where’s your zinc? Where’s your carnitine? Where’s your carnosine? Where’s your choline? It’s a huge list of things. How much protein are you getting? Are you actually a net positive nitrogen balance? Let’s check your labs. Are you getting enough iodine? Where are you getting iodine from on a vegan diet?

It doesn’t make sense. You have to supplement with probably 27 different things. You have to think about the availability of your protein, the net nitrogen uses of your protein.

And you know people may not know this about me. I was a vegan, I was a raw vegan for about 7 months about 14 years ago. And my problem — and one thing I’ve heard from a lot of other people, in fact my clients, are the same thing today — is that, even if you’re able to eat the foods and perfectly construct micronutrients, you’re going to have so much gas that nobody’s going to want to be around you in the first place.

And I don’t believe that, in any way, shape or form, a synthetic diet is the same as a real foods diet. You can eat plants and take 25 supplements. But then you think what’s in your supplements? And are they bioavailable in the same way? And do they have the cofactors like they do in the food? And to imagine — we’ve done so much in human nutrition — but to imagine that we really understand fully the way that humans eat and digest their food I think is just that’s just pride and that’s just a folly.

Mike Mutzel:

Well, I agree I mean I think there’s a lot more to food than we recognize: micro RNA, transfer RNA, like other molecules that are not quote-unquote macronutrients. Yeah, now I think that’s what you’re getting from plants and animals in a good or bad way that a lot of people don’t think about. For example, you know there’s animal studies that show stress on animals; for example, like pre-slaughter stress affects the transcription patches and various genes in the animal product.

So, I love how you’re bringing to this whole carnivore movement — like the grass-fed movement, eating more organic free-range, things like that — because one of the qualms that I had seeing this thing take off is a lot of people going to fast food were taking the bun off the burger saying that there’s really no difference between grass-fed or a grain-fed. Like meat’s meat, just get what you can afford. I understand that some people… I’ve been in that place financially before in my life where grass-fed was a luxury.

But the other constituents that could potentially be in lower quality foods, both plant and animal. And the other thing about that you, just to hit on one more thing… The supplements —  been in the supplement space since ’06 — they’re not free of iatrogenesis, right. So there is heavy metals, arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium in supplements; even vegan proteins, for example.

Paul Saladino:

Yeah, highly contaminated. Yeah, people don’t think about the metals in their supplements. And I see a lot of clients with high heavy metals and we think where are you getting this from. I saw a guy the other day with a really high tin and I think it’s in his supplements. And so anyway, that’s a whole other story

Healthy Diet Made Simple

Let me share the Cosmic Secret of Dietary Success™. It cannot fail! Money back guaranteed.

I’ve studied and experimented with various diets. And I’ve observed many others in their own experiences and results. One begins to see patterns across all dietary regimens and strategies. There is a basic consistency to what works for most people.

Here it is — the official DICE Dietary Protocol© (not in order of priority):

  1. Don’t eat fat and carbs together, limiting one or the other or both. That is to say, do a low-carb/moderate-to-high-fat diet or a low-fat/moderate-to-high-carb diet. In either case, it can be done as plant-based, animal-based, or fancy-free omnivory. In practice, this would mean, for example, eating the bread or eating the meat but not eating a sandwich with the two combined. This is the standard strategy for any health issue related to metabolic syndrome, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and fatty liver. This is because lots of starchy carbs and added sugar combined with lots of fats, especially industrial seed oils (oxidized and high in omega-6 fatty acids), causes all kinds of havoc in the body. Going one way or the other will effectively improve health, at least in the short term of counteracting the accumulated harm of the Standard American Diet (SAD). Debates about what is the best long-term diet is a separate issue.
  2. If struggling, try an elimination diet in order to determine specific allergies or intolerances: wheat gluten, dairy lactose, egg whites, plant oxalates, and many other potentially problematic foods and categories of foods (such as the nightshade family and anything high in histamines). There are many versions of the elimination diet. The most conventional one is to remove from the diet everything besides rice. However, a downside to this is that a significant percentage of people have a high glycemic response to rice, which is a problem with 88% of the American population with one or more symptoms of metabolic syndrome. So, some might find using meat, instead of rice, as a better starting point (Like water fasts, meat fasts are good for health). Few people have any problems with fresh meat from ruminants. In fact, some find this so beneficial with all that ails them that they remain carnivore or else decide to use plant foods sparingly. Sure, others might instead choose to go the vegetarian or vegan route, but I’ve never heard of anyone trying an elimination diet with rice and deciding to eat nothing other than rice for the rest of their lives.
  3. Change metabolic functioning with fasting, calorie restriction, portion control, protein leveraging, hormonal hunger signaling, etc. This is one of the most powerful and effective tools, especially for fat loss and weight maintenance. Some of these methods have the added benefit of curbing appetite, cravings, and addictions while improving mood, energy, and stamina. This is specifically true with ketosis that can be achieved by numerous means, not limited to the ketogenic diet. Many diets, intentionally or unintentionally, increase ketone levels and, simply put, that makes one feel good. There are way more ketogenic and lower-carb diets than is generally acknowledged in how they are labeled or marketed (e.g., Weight Watchers’ Paleo Diet). This is a natural tendency in the dieting world because low-carb, especially ketogenic, is a powerhouse strategy. It’s not the only strategy, but it’s hard to go wrong with it. Even on higher carb diets, many people will turn to other methods that promote ketone production — the above mentioned fasting, calorie restriction, and portion control or else long periods of aerobic exercise. People intuitively seek out ketosis, whether or not they know anything about it.
  4. Exclude highly processed foods with chemical additives, refined carbs, added sugar, and seed oils. Basically, avoid junk food and fast food: candy, chips, crackers, commercial breads, pop, fruit juice, and other such crap. So, eat whole foods or else those prepared in traditional ways: lightly cooked or steamed vegetables, soaked and rinsed legumes, long-fermented breads, real sauerkraut, yogurt, raw aged cheese, homemade bone broth, naturally-cured meat, etc (ignoring minor disagreements over details, as there are always disagreements). Generally, avoid packaged foods, especially those with long lists of ingredients that you don’t recognize and can’t pronounce. And when possible, cook your own meals with ingredients procured from trustworthy sources.

Some combination and variation of this set of guidelines will solve basic diet-related health concerns for almost anyone. For bonus points, eat foods that are locally produced, in season, organic, pasture-raised, wild-caught, nutrient-dense, and nutrient-bioavailable. You’re welcome!

“Now we know.”
“And Knowing is half the battle.”
“G.I. Joe!!!”