Thursday, May 11th 2023 at 11:00 am
Written By: Jan Wellmann
Our dinner table will be void of high-density, natural, animal-sourced foods within a decade or two. A deeper look behind the agenda explains why it’s necessary to start planning for self-sustenance.
Tell Me What You Eat
“Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you who you are,” wrote the French gastronome Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in his 1825 book Physiology of Taste.1
Friedrich Nietzsche agreed with the notion in Ecce Homo almost a century later. Nietsche tried vegetarianism but concluded that moderation and balance in everything were for the best, just like Brillat-Savarin, who also emphasized enjoyment and quality of food.
Another century later, it’s time again to remember that yes, indeed, “we are what we eat,” as the social engineers aim to eliminate high-density, animal-sourced nutrition – such as meat, dairy, and eggs – and replace it with plant-synthesized foods.
With “plants,” we don’t mean the living, growing things from nature but laboratory-sourced and factory-made variants.
Take, for example, plant seed oils, aka vegetable oils, which are almost entirely synthetic, and represent one of the most damaging, widely propagated nutrients available, damaging the gastrointestinal tract, undermining the microbial balance, and perforating the gut lining – cornerstones of our digestive, immune, and endocrine systems.2
Whether we like the idea of low-density, genetically manipulated, and chemically construed nutrients doesn’t matter. What matters is to optimize the CO2 impact of our future calories in a way that doesn’t destroy the planet.
This emotional, psychologically calibrated story consists of 50 percent cosmetics and 50 percent bullshit.
The real agenda is control.
As Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab’s grand old tutor and spokesperson of the World Government clan, supposedly said, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”3
It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to realize that these tangents are now fully engaged. We’re on our way to a human paddock system. Once inside, the exit will be tricky.
We will focus on the food aspect below because it will have the most immediate and profound impact on what the human species will become tomorrow. If we fail to stop the present vector, we will face a catastrophically sicker and weaker constituency that relies on pharmaceuticals, boosters, and an AI-driven nanny.
Large swaths of the population have already been brainwashed to believe that the next meatless upgrade of the SAD (Standard American Diet) will be good for humans and the planet.
Once you’re Clockwork Oranged into the benefits of vegan synthetic burgers, a single image of a steak dinner may activate the words “cholesterol,” “ICU,” and “defibrillator” in your subconscious, along with a GIF animation of yourself writhing on a TV couch from a coronary attack.
You may also witness cows on pastel pastures farting methane clouds, responsible for sinking Bangkok, New Orleans, Miami, and Venice under the rising sea. Don’t forget the ice caps melting, polar bears drowning, their cubs starving, and your dreams of ever visiting Rome, Italy, vaporizing because southern Europe is becoming a part of the Sahara.
Terrible things happen when you lack the moral courage to refuse a steak.
It takes decades of engineered narratives to get to this level of mindfuckery. It takes a century’s worth of psyops to swallow the anti-meat narrative as if it was a series of scientific arguments.
Unfortunately, it’s not the first or the last time we got taken for a ride.
Historic Forerunner: The Cholesterol Con
Phasing out meat will likely overshadow the harm done by phasing out saturated fat, which began with the 1980s “low-fat” craze, aka the “saturated fat-clogs-arteries” myth.
What happened within a few low-fat decades is historical, as evidenced by the explosion of obesity rates in industrialized countries.
The low-fat disinformation campaign used cholesterol as the patsy. Eating fat leads to excess cholesterol leads to heart disease -story. Today, we know it was a fabrication from beginning to end.
According to the latest peer-reviewed research, “consuming a diet consisting of a high percentage of natural fats, a moderate amount of protein, and a low ratio of carbohydrates will help us lose weight, prevent disease, satisfy our appetite, reduce food cravings, and promote longevity.”4
Consuming good fats (coconut oil, olive oil, organic meat fats, avocado, fish oils, etc.) is a reliable way to gain high-density calories while losing weight healthily without affecting our cholesterol level.
Besides, uncorrupted science has known for a long time that cholesterol is vital for life. “It is a critical building block for hormones, a crucial part of the immune system, and central to the body’s tissue-repair apparatus. Without cholesterol, there would be no cell renewal and no life,” writes Dr. Jeffry Gerber in Eat Rich Live Long.
If you have stress and inflammation in the body, as most people do nowadays, your survival relies on increased cholesterol levels, as it helps heal and repair the damaged cells. Unless you pop a Lipitor, of course, and prevent the body from healing itself.
Due to the multibillion-dollar market for cholesterol-lowering pills, Big Pharma – assisted by Big Media and Big Healthcare – first demonized cholesterol and second manipulated the threshold for diagnosing “high cholesterol” until almost every human on the planet met the criteria to pop a statin. By 2011, Pfizer was making $11 billion on Lipitor alone. By 2021, Lipitor had aggregated lifetime sales of over $163 billion.5 6 7 8
That’s quite a performance for a pill with serious side effects (including rapid memory loss, balance issues, and acute muscle pain) and a near-zero impact on longevity or well-being.9 10
The Grand Cholesterol Con will live in infamy and can probably only be surpassed by the legacy of the MRNA shots11, but that’s another (developing) story.
Now we’re entering the next level of harm potential for humanity. As we shall see from objective nutritional data, going meatless will be a turbo accelerator for the already failing collective physical and mental health. Or let’s just say “health” since “mental” and “physical” are both aspects of metabolic health, driven by our standard of nutrition and lifestyle.12 13
The new nutritional reality will also do nothing to climate change while compromising efficient land management to the point of planetary self-sabotage.
The Arguments Against Meat
The chief arguments against meat – according to the engineered narrative – are the following:
1) Ethical: the modern meat industry is evil.
2) Efficiency: meat production is inefficient and can’t nourish the global population.
3) Health: Meat is bad for you and correlates with cancer, coronary disease, etc.
4) CO2: Meat production drives climate change.
5) Better Alternatives: The new synthetic meat alternatives are healthier, more cost-effective, and more eco-friendly.
6) Spiritual / Religious: why should humans have the right to kill and eat other life forms?
There are probably more, but let’s tackle these first.
“The Meat Industry is Evil & Ecologically Inefficient”
Yes, it’s true. The processed meat industry is one of the great evils of our time. In the last century, we’ve normalized wholesale animal suffering in exchange for vacuum-packed protein slices and corporate profits. We can taste the nightmare in the end product if our conscience is still attached to our taste buds. We’re not just getting a piece of a cadaver that’s imprinted with a lifetime of torture; we’re also getting a carcinogenic cocktail of chemicals intended to preserve the animal long enough to be sold and digested (Table 1).
This is why vegans have such a powerful, convincing argument. “Please, just stop this insanity! It’s the crime of the century!” And they’re right. The offense is so bad that future alien societies will probably singe us (similar to Tim Burton’s Mars Attacks) based on what we did to animals in the 20th and 21st centuries.
However, the holocaust argument ignores the fact that we could also work with animals without subjecting them to, err, a holocaust. We could replace the concentration camps with animal- and eco-friendly environments, where the animals graze free, fertilize the ground naturally without oil-based derivatives, and thrive without a cocktail of hormones because they are free and content.14
This brilliant strategy, designed by nature, can be imitated by regenerative agriculture with crop diversity, free-grazing livestock, and natural fertilization by letting animals and vegetation mingle.15
The modern slaughterhouse is an example of what happens when we second-guess nature, then blame meat for all the ills – including contamination (methane, nitrous oxide) and animal disease (necessitating antibiotics and hormones) – when the problems only concern the method of execution.
“During the past century, agriculture declared fossil-fuel-based warfare on land mechanically (plowing soil), chemically (herbicides and pesticides), and biologically (GMO technology). By separating rearing livestock from growing crops, we de-coupled bio-and geochemical cycling of carbon, water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur, and increased emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, as well as eutrophication and contamination of water sources,” write the authors of an extensive study into sustainable food systems.16
The gut reaction to these arguments is usually strictly emotional. “You can’t feed billions of people with free-grazing meat!” The truth is that the present system – chemically induced mono-crops that serial produce arid land and separate animals from nature – is the unsustainable equation.
Pro-vegan ambassadors forget that most agricultural land cannot be leveraged for crops anyway – due to unsuitable terrain, poor soil, lack of water, et cetera. Two-thirds of the world’s two billion hectares of grassland (as opposed to agricultural land) globally cannot be used as cropland, which makes them ideal for grazing happy livestock.17 18 19
Take Alan Savory, a land management expert who studied the herds in his native Zimbabwe. When the animals were allowed to roam in a way that left enough resting time for the soil to recover (nature’s way), magic happened, with a triple bonus:
The herd lives healthy and free.
The herd helps revitalize arid land to the point of transforming desertified areas into fertile land (the only known technique that does this successfully today)
The herd produces exceptionally high-nutrition meat sans hormones, antibiotics, and chemicals.
Alan’s TED talk about the Holistic Planned Grazing method is worth a listen. You will wonder why it hasn’t been widely adopted yet in other parts of the world. It is the answer to one of the most pressing problems of our planet: arid lands.20 21
Arid lands make up nearly 30% to 41% of the world’s land surface and are home to one in three people today. The degradation in the land quality of arid regions is responsible for a reduction in the national domestic product of up to eight percent every year.
“We can avoid the common fate of ancient societies as long as we do not repeat their grand folly of stripping off fertile topsoil at an unsustainable rate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are doing, only this time on a global scale,” writes David Montgomery in his book Dirt, The Erosion of Civilizations.
Why doesn’t the media talk about this story?
The answer is that the social engineers would have to give up on argument against the possibility of ethical meat production.
The vegan narrative sidelines the fact that we can work with animals as equals. It wants us to focus on an ethical crime because it’s the perfect recruitment campaign for anti-meat movements.
The ethical recruitment effort is working, but surprisingly, it hasn’t produced enough foot soldiers for a revolution. Although the narrative in the last two decades has drastically increased the number of vegans, the total is still hovering below 3 percent of the US and EU population.22 23 24
This is why the social engineers have long ago recognized that they need to spice up the story beyond the ethical.
Meat needs to also be bad for humans and the planet.
“Meat Is Bad For Humans”
Even if all “plant-based” foods were, in fact, natural, made from clean vegetables, fruit, and seeds, a purely vegan diet would be insufficient to keep most people healthy.
“I’m writing this book as a cautionary tale. A vegetarian diet–especially a low-fat version, and most especially a vegan one–is not sufficient nutrition for long-term maintenance and repair of the human body. To put it bluntly, it will damage you. I know. Two years into my veganhood, my health failed, and it failed catastrophically. I developed a degenerative joint disease that I will have for the rest of my life. It started that spring as a strange, dull ache deep in a place I didn’t know could have sensation. By the end of the summer, it felt like shrapnel in my spine,” writes Lierre Keith in her book The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. Lierre is a former vegan who devoted her life to understanding the science of nutrition (full quote25).
At first, the awakened vegans – often young girls – who give up meat for ethical reasons feel uplifted, lighter, awakened, and more energetic – self-ascertained. As years pass by, chronic issues accrue slowly. Just like frogs in simmering water fail to notice the temperature increase, vegans fail to notice the gradual energy loss, the fatigue, and the rise of chronic issues. They have to hit a wall, often after the second decade, before they realize something is genuinely wrong.
We often need an ambulance trip to allow for a change in thinking. I did. And even the ICU is usually not enough to restart the brain. We also need exposure to the right, uncorrupted data. These two factors rarely coincide.
I first came across the vegan downside via metabolomic blood studies that examine cellular ATP production, the so-called citric cycle, with molecular blood scans. Although I was already eating meat, my blood values told me to focus on more meat intake to improve my amino acid balance. The metabolomic expert told me that my nutritional profile was that of a caveman. My new meat- and fat-rich diet became a game changer for me. After years of fatigue, I thrived. I decided to pass on the favor and introduce more people to metabolomic scans, to help them identify their unique nutritional profile, and get healthier. I learned from a history of over 15,000 metabolomic scans that the chronic issue incidence is significantly higher for women in their late 40s and 50s who had been on a vegan diet for at least 15-20 years.26
Later, I began to work with biophysical scans27 28 that take only 12 minutes to measure the energetic level of the human body and noticed a common theme in over a thousand measurements. Women avoiding meat for over a decade had more chronic issues and exhibited lower energy, higher incidence of depression, gut issues, and a weaker immune system.
Convincing a vegan to change tact is tricky because the arguments – especially the ethical and spiritual – are deeply embedded in the emotional narrative. Out of the handful – dozen or so – individuals whom I had the honor of convincing enough to complement their diet with organic meat – “at least a tiny bit of organic beef or chicken liver a couple of times per week” – 95 percent changed their tune within a few weeks and stuck with animal products.
“Moderation and balance,” remember?
It’s important to stress that diet is always highly individual. Not everyone needs meat as others. But it is safe to say that almost everyone needs some animal-derived products in their diet. The reason is simple. Meat can deliver certain critical nutrients that no vegan product can with the same metabolic efficiency.
“Although the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) is quoted as having said that ‘all of the major dietetics societies have published papers stating that a vegan diet is nutritionally adequate for all stages of human health,’ accompanying this statement is a list of all the nutrients that need to be obtained via fortification and supplements, an admission that a vegan diet is not, in and of itself, safe or complete,” writes Jayne Buxton in The Great Plant-Based Con.
“Nutrients that are only found in animal foods include preformed vitamin A, B12, D3 and K2 (MK4 subtype), heme iron, taurine, carnosine, creatine, CLA, EPA, and DHA. Nutrients low in plants include zinc, iodine, methionine, leucine, choline, and glycine. Furthermore, plants often have different forms of the same nutrient that are less bioavailable and are metabolized differently.”29
Let’s take a quick look at the Top 5.
Vitamin A is key for protein and calcium assimilation, bone growth, eyesight, immune system function, thyroid function, and the production of stress and sex hormones. Vegetarian and vegan diets suffer from a near-total lack of vitamin A.30
Vitamin D promotes strong bones, a healthy immune system, reduced inflammation, mineral metabolism, calcium absorption, muscle tone, healthy glucose metabolism, cell function, and longevity. The body naturally wants D3, which the body makes when exposed to the sun. Still, the body needs animal foods (including shellfish, fish liver oils, egg yolks, organ meats, butterfat, and the fat of birds and pigs) because D2 from plants is vastly inferior, and the D3 from animal foods is significantly more bioavailable and potent.31
Vitamin B12 plays a role in DNA synthesis, myelin formation, red cell production, and central nervous system maintenance. There are no reliable plant sources of B12, which is why vegetarians and vegans exhibit high levels of B12 deficiency. Symptoms include fatigue, depression, anxiety, poor memory, balance problems, vision deterioration, mental confusion or memory loss, and depression.32 33
Similar data applies to Omega 3 fatty acids, which are crucial for cell membranes. It isn’t easy to get omega-3s from flax or chia seeds. Oily fish or grass-fed meat would be a vastly better alternative for maintaining cellular health.
What about minerals? Getting all the 17 essential minerals from plant-based sources exclusively is extremely difficult. We would need to eat unsustainable amounts of plant equivalents to get to minimum acceptable levels if we had to avoid animal-based foods.34 35
The list goes on.
It’s good to remember the history of indigenous tribes. Before Western colonialism got to them, they were thriving on high-fat, meat-centric diets, sans chronic disease.
Two missionary physicians who arrived in Kenya in the 1920s wrote that “hypertension and diabetes were absent… the native population was as thin as ancient Egyptians.”
It took forty years of British high-carb diets to convert the slim Kenyans into obese Africans with a host of health issues, starting with tooth decay and leading to “gout, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, and eventually encompassing all of them,” the missionaries observed.36
India was similarly transformed into the “Diabetes Capital Of The World,” with British-introduced nutrition habits. Western diets literally wiped out the perfectly healthy Inuit, the Native Americans, the Zulus, the Natal Indians, Polynesian cultures, Yanomamo and Xingu Indians of Brazil, and whoever else was either forcibly or willingly acculturated to our lifestyle.
“Red Meat Causes Cancer”
What about all the “endless” studies “proving” that meat eaters are sicker and more prone to chronic disease? What about the correlation between red meat and cancer?
Well, it’s a bit like the “99 percent of scientists agree…” angle used in so many fairy tales today, from MRNA to climate change. When you lift the curtain, you witness a different reality. Often, the rare scientists who disagree with the “consensus” are independent scientists with integrity, untainted by corporate paychecks or research grants. Call it the Copernicus Syndrome.
The two studies linking cancer to red meat consumption, for example, compare consumers of processed meats (see Table 1 below for the list of chemicals and carcinogens in modern processed meats) with vegetarian diets and fail to also adjust for lifestyle differences (meat eaters are also more often smokers and drinkers), and other variables. In short, the research is “cooked” to look bad for meat. The faulty studies are then propagated by WHO and quoted by mainstream media as if they represented axiomatic truths.37
TABLE 1 – ADDITIVES IN PROCESSED MEAT
- Bisphenols, such as BPA, can act like the hormone estrogen, interfere with puberty and fertility, increase body fat, and cause problems with the immune and nervous systems.
- Nitrates/nitrites are used to extend shelf life, preserve foods, and enhance color in cured meats. When heated or mixed with stomach acid, nitrites can produce nitrosamines, linked to an increased risk of colon and pancreatic cancer.
- Tert-butyl hydroquinone (TBHQ), a preservative in many processed foods, may harm the immune system.
- Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals that can accumulate in the body and have been linked to health issues such as hormone disruption, immune system problems, and cancer.
- Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which some people may be sensitive or allergic to, causes symptoms such as headaches, nausea, and chest pain.
- Sulfites, which are used as a preservative and can trigger asthma.
- Phosphates are sometimes added to processed meats and, when consumed in excessive amounts, can increase the risk of heart disease.
- Hormones may be used in animal production to promote growth and potentially disrupt hormonal balance in humans.
No doubt, consuming these chemicals, even without red meat, will probably make you sick.
“Epidemiological studies that find inverse associations between eating red meat and health do not distinguish between meat from livestock fed high-grain diets in feedlots and livestock foraging on phytochemically rich mixtures of plants. Nor do they address how herbs, spices, vegetables, and fruits eaten in a meal with meat can enhance health,” writes Fred Provenza in Frontiers in Nutrition.38
You are hard-pressed to find a single, uncooked study proving that organic meats negatively affect health.
“The benefits to humans of eating phytochemically/ biochemically rich meat accrue as livestock assimilate some phytochemicals and convert others into metabolites that become muscle and fat, which become the phytochemicals/biochemicals that promote health. That is similar to but distinct from, the benefits realized by eating phytochemically rich herbs, spices, vegetables, and fruits. This expanded pool of compounds–phytochemicals and metabolites produced by animals from plants–should be considered in attempts to understand benefits to humans, such as damping oxidative stress and inflammation linked with cancer, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic syndrome,” continues Fred Provenza.
The cognitive dissonance ride that comes with digging into the truth of meat is akin to hanging on to a raging bull with your cowboy hat on. It just gets crazier rapidly. But hang on just a little bit longer.
“Cow Burbs And Farts Cause Climate Change”
Cows are responsible for the coming apocalypse if we trust the tale. But there is a catch.
The original story of how cow burbs and farts contribute catastrophically to our methane levels comes from an Oxford University study39 that was referenced in a public UK broadcast in 2020. The media hijacked the story as proof that humans could reduce their carbon footprint by 61-73 percent if they went vegan. However, the actual Oxford study refers to different foods’ footprints, not people’s. Big difference.
Estimates for an individual’s food footprint is at most 16 percent, which means that the theoretical maximum for reducing individual footprint by going vegan is 16 percent out of 73 percent, or about 10 percent.
However, even this 10 percent maximum is messed because the entire argumentation is lopsided.
Let’s take an example of exactly how lopsided.
If you lock in a thousand bunny rabbits in a small shed, and they wreck the place with poopoo, do you blame the bunnies for destroying the shed, or do you take responsibility for locking them in the shed in the first place?
As long as we keep billions of farm animals separated from the nitrogen cycle, producing waste that’s not cycled effectively back into nature’s bosom, incalculable damage will continue to animals and planet, including vast amounts of unnecessary methane release.40
If we, on the other hand, follow the natural cycle of the Earth, integrate free-grazing animals into our future eco-plans, there is another narrative-reversing boon, which is namely sequestration, the way in which natural land management captures CO2. This can be further accelerated with silvopasture, which is a way to integrate trees into working landscapes.41 42
Sequestration-conscious land management policies have the power to reverse climate change, desertification, and methane production, but are rarely if ever discussed by scientists or the media. Wonder why?
Instead, mainstream media propagates absurd allegations made by publicity stunts like the Cowspiracy documentary, which alleges that animal agriculture accounts for 51 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. Although the producers were later forced to retract these allegations, the story stuck with the public, because it abides with the engineered narrative.
The reality is that in the US, where the per capita meat consumption is highest in the world, agriculture accounts for 9 percent, transportation 29 percent, and industry 22 percent of total emissions.
Emissions from animal agriculture are around 4 percent of the total for agriculture, whereas those from non-animal agriculture are 5 percent.
There you go. Animal agriculture, even in it’s incredibly evil shape today, isn’t worse than non-animal agriculture in terms of emissions.
These numbers represent the current, highly inefficient, non-sequestration, non-nitrogen-cycled reality. The one we should reform instead of castrating our food supply.
“New Synthetic Meat Alternatives Are Better”
Processed, low-fat, plant-based foods began the obesity epidemic in the 1980s, yet we are expected to believe that the new ultra-processed (Frankenstein) foods (UPFs) are going to be great for us.
The fake meat industry is already taking leaps and bounds. According to Bloomberg, the plant-based meat market could reach $450 billion by 2040 and grow at least $70 billion over the next decade.43 44
UPFs present a formidable threat to global health. Pediatric endocrinologist Dr Robert Lustig details in his book45 how UPFs have already helped to fuel non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and dementia. UPFs are also addictive, obesogenic (contributing to obesity), and tend to mess with the immune system, according to Dr. Joan Ifland.46
Most people who will likely confuse plant-based diets with healthy, vegan nutrition are in for a deadly ride with ultra-processed synthetic proteins, additives, preservatives, stabilizers, GMO concoctions, emulsifiers, seed oils, sugars, acidity regulators and thickeners regurgitated in a matrix of test tubes in a way that gets them hooked for a lifetime.
UPFs are not just going to replace natural meat products but also dairy, eggs, and grain.
We are what we eat.
One day, we may believe that delicious tasting and smelling silicon wafers are good for us with a side of tofu, while an AI program decides where to haul our wheelchair next.
“Why Should Humans Be Allowed To Kill Animals?”
This ethical argument drives more vegan converts than any other argument for understandable reasons. It’s commendable to be shocked about the slaughterhouse conditions of suffering animals, but blaming meat consumption for the evil is an engineered, simplified response to the problem, since we already know how easily the problem could be fixed with regenerative farming models.
There is also another aspect that the main narrative is burying in this context: the amount of suffering and killing of animals due to modern agriculture per se. Mono-crop agriculture is not possible without the wholesale slaughter of diversified lifeforms.
Few farmers consider the math.
“For me to grow 214 acres of stone fruit and avocados on this farm requires me to kill at least thirty-five to forty thousand gophers a year, thousands of ground squirrels, thousands of bees, thousands of butterflies, thousands of hummingbirds, those last three things completely by accident, the other two are predators or pests that I would kill intentionally,” calculates Californian farmer John Chester.47
To grow 400 tonnes of peas on a single farm will kill 1,500 animals every year, from deer to ducks. A billion mice are killed in Australia to protect meat. Forty thousand ducks are killed to protect rice production. An average apple grower will kill 120 possums in a year to protect an orchard.
In 2013, rice farmers in New South Wales killed 200,000 native ducks. US Department of Agriculture estimates 1.3 million native animal deaths per year to protect non-animal agriculture. In total, at least twenty-five times more sentient animals are getting killed per kilo of useable protein when compared to meat production.48
However, the math is irrelevant here. There is a deeper argument that has to do with nature of life that we should consider.
Every form of life depends on the consumption of other life forms. Even vegetables are meat eaters if you observe a carcass that’s left in the forest or pasture, as the cycle of life and energy grinds its inevitable destiny of forever transmuting from one form to another.
Lierre Keith recounts the story of an apple tree near the graves of Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island.
“The roots of the tree were found to have grown into the graves and assumed the shape of human skeletons while the graves were emptied of every particle of human dust. Not a trace of anything was left.”
The apple tree ate a human. Is the apple tree bad?
“Now, one of the main problems of mythology is reconciling the mind to this brutal precondition of all life, which lives by the killing and eating of lives. You don’t kid yourself by eating only vegetables, either, for they, too, are alive. So the essence of life is this eating of itself! Life lives on lives, and the reconciliation of the human mind and sensibilities to that fundamental fact.” Writes Joseph Campbell, the penultimate authority on ancient civilizations.
Even when we stick to the purest principles of nature, where we safeguard animals, the planet, and human interests with equal balance, we’ll still be eating each other.
Undoubtedly, we’ll have to do it while being nicer to each other.
Epilogue: Shortcutting The “Scientific Consensus”
As we’ve already learned, any claim leveraging “scientific consensus” should be considered investigation-worthy if used to justify the engineered agenda.
If a naysayer, such as a “climate denier,” gets demolished by the media or their professional circles, we should look deeper into their data models.
A few years ago, I was sold on sea-level rise, collapsing icebergs, and the sixth extinction. Today, I believe we should look at the “manmade” part of the “consensus.”49
If any story aligns with the envisioned future of nutrition, we should take our magnifying glasses out and dig in with hellish dedication.
The pursuit of truth is a critical determinant of the future shape of our species. There is nothing more important than preserving our health and energy. For that to happen, we need to once again integrate with nature, eat in a healthy, natural, and balanced way, and get busy with things we are passionate about.