There’s all this talk about why it is right or wrong to eat animals. But the simple reality of why almost all people eat animals is obvious:
-Animals can’t defend themselves.
-None of us have to fear being mistaken for animals.
We can imagine a hypothetical scenario, where humans eat the bodies of the terminally ill and the brain-dead. What the arguments against it look, are generally going to be “slippery slope” arguments. When some group of individuals can’t defend themselves and we don’t have to fear being mistaken for them, the process of “othering” begins. In Nazi Germany, the children were taught to recognize a Jewish nose and the doctors had theories about how blood of a Jew will make people sick if it’s transferred to others.
What tends to happen when someone can’t defend themselves, is not that others will defend them. Rather, what tends to happen is that people will start to come up with arguments for why it is right to attack them. I’ve looked up Hitler’s earliest speeches and you always find all sorts of disorganized unrelated arguments, that Jews prostitute their wives, that Jews haggle, that Jews don’t like to work. You can tell that he was just grasping at straws. It was hatred in search of a motive.
It reminds me of elementary school, in our final year, when some kid organized a party and invited everyone except for one boy who was always picked on. It was essentially a humiliation ritual and the boy was of course distraught. I later visited a friend’s house and we explained the situation there and her mother explained to us that this is right, due to “everything he has done to others”, which is just utter nonsense. I already recognized it as such at the time and as an adult I regret not boycotting the party.
But you have to recognize, that the world tends to operate like this everywhere. It’s an element of human psychology, where you enter a kind of scapegoat positive feedback loop, where someone is abused, the abusers come up with arguments to justify the abuse, then the arguments start to incite further abuse. And if the victim fights back, that also turns an argument for abuse.
It reminds me of a case I have discussed before, of Leigh Leigh in Australia, a sweet young teenage girl, who wanted to be a veterinarian. To me this is one of the most intriguing episodes of human history, because of what it tells us about human psychology.
Leigh Leigh was invited to a party, it was the first party she would ever attend in her life. She was given whiskey with cola. She drank it and become very intoxicated quite rapidly. A 15 year old boy named NC1 took her to the beach, but she was so drunk he almost had to carry her.
When Leigh Leigh returned to the party, she was bleeding between her legs and very distressed. Now I have to point out again, that NC1 was never named and never criminally prosecuted. If someone is drunk and bleeding from between her legs, you clearly raped and severely abused her.
That’s what Leigh Leigh said. She said that she had been raped by him and that she hated him. But what happens next, is what is interesting. Webster, one of two boys above 18, said to a group of boys: “She’s a bit of a slut, why don’t all of us have a go.”
Nineteen year old Guy Wilson then puts his arm around her and asked her for sex. Leigh refused, in response to which Wilson pushed her to the ground. Leigh was then surrounded by Webster and around ten other boys.
They yelled abuse at her, kicked her, poured beer on her and spat both beer and saliva on her. Several people witnessed the assault, but did not come to help her. After five minutes Leigh stood up and threw a beer bottle at them. Wilson then threw a bottle back at her.
The boys followed her into the club house, where the party was held and continued similar assaults. A little later she headed to the beach. Here she would be found dead, with wounds to her vulva. It seemed an inflexible object, like a beer bottle, had caused most of the injuries.
Eventually, Webster admitted to the murder. He admitted that he walked with her to the saltbushes, where he pulled off her clothes and stuck a finger in her vagina. He stated that he lost his temper for Leigh “rebuffing him”, which led him to choke her for a while, before killing her with a rock, as he feared she would “squeal on him for trying to rape her”.
But the important point I want to emphasize here, is what it tells us about human psychology. Murder is a pretty rare event. There are inevitably numerous events worldwide like this, that don’t result in murder. The event is disturbing enough in its own right, even if you were to leave out the murderous end.
Without the culmination in murder, this would just be another tale of a teenager traumatized for the rest of her life. But equally worth noting, is that the community didn’t really want any of this to be prosecuted and the police investigation was a travesty of justice.
Most people don’t really have a strong sense of right or wrong. Rather, they have a sense of “might makes right”. If you place yourself in a position where you can’t defend yourself against aggression, then you deserve to suffer such aggression. That is how most people intuitively tend to look at the world.
Leigh’s state of drunkenness invites rape. Leigh’s subsequent admission to being raped, then becomes a revelation of weakness, which invites further attacks. The important thing to emphasize again here, is that this is simply the group consensus. You have around eleven boys, who all act in accordance to this logic.
How other people treat you, is entirely context dependent. I can not emphasize this enough. There is this man who survived Auschwitz, who says that he always wonders when someone is nice to him, how that person would behave to him in Auschwitz.
How people treat you, depends on a number of factors:
-What do you have to offer them?
-Can you defend yourself against aggression?
-How would other people react, upon realizing how someone else treated you?
In most of society, you can answer these questions as following:
-What do I have to offer others? Some money for some products or services, if I trust them.
-Can I defend myself against aggression? Yes, I have the law on my side.
-How would others react? They’d consider it outrageous if someone was spontaneously nasty to me.
But there are numerous scenarios we can think of, where those three answers look very different.
A group consensus, can be very different, for example, if you are a low status intoxicated teenage girl.
In that case, the answer looks as following:
-What do I have to offer? Sexual access to a female body.
-Can I defend myself against aggression? No I can’t, because I’m intoxicated.
-How would others react? They would dispute my account of what happened, because I was intoxicated.
Think carefully about this. In the scenario where Leigh Leigh is sober, she is a very reliable witness. In that context, the only real way for the boys to maximize their chances of having sexual access to her body, is to be nice to her. So what would they be? They would be nice to her.
But their being nice to her, would not be a product of them genuinely liking her. Given the context, it would simply be a game-theoretic optimal way for them to maximize their chances of having sexual access to her body, without having to suffer the risk of legal persecution.
Does this sound like too autistic and inhuman of an analysis of a girl being murdered to you?
Well, I want you to realize that we’re a product of Darwinian incentives. And there are simply situations where the Darwinian incentives maximize your chances of reproduction when you’re nice to others, whereas there are other situations, where gang rape is the game-theoretic optimal strategy for you to pass on your genes.
You also have to understand this: When eleven boys stand in a circle and abuse Leigh Leigh, what are they doing? Well, imagine one boy not abusing her. All the boys are at risk of being ratted out by this one single boy, which leads to their local group consensus being outmaneuvered by the bigger societal consensus.
So the boys are also stuck in a signaling problem. They risk expulsion from their group, if they don’t participate. After all, that’s the only way to maintain the group consensus: “If you don’t join us in spitting on Leigh Leigh, we’re not inviting you to the next party.”
You can’t really afford to be neutral, no, you have to signal that you endorse the abuse. This ensures that you continue to be invited and now have to defend the group as a whole from the outside world.
But I want to remind you again: If you understand the strength of the law in our society, then you also understand that we created a society where the game-theoretic optimal strategy for your own individual success is almost always to be nice to others.
Those other people won’t think: “oh he’s just following his game-theoretic optimal strategy for his own individual success.” No, those people will think: “Well, that man is nice.”
In our context, being nice to the guy you want to sell a new car to is your game-theoretic optimal strategy. But had you been born 80 years earlier, your optimal strategy for your own success might have been to point a gun at him and have him dig the ditch you’re going to bury his body in.
When you see this, you realize that most people are not really nice. They’re fundamentally just the same people who operate the gas chambers that pigs die in, they’re the same people who spit at Leigh Leigh when blood was dripping from between their legs, they’re the same people who send their neighbors off to the camps.
Nice and friendly, is just a game-theoretic optimal strategy in our society. And the more we get cameras everywhere, the more we get DNA evidence, the more we get social media that immortalizes everything, the more “nice and friendly” becomes the only fit strategy for people to follow.
But that doesn’t make them people who inherently want the best for you.
I am really only interested in knowing how people behave, in those situations where the game-theoretic optimal strategy for their own pursuit of success is to spit at you as the blood drips between your legs.
Those situations are not very common. But when they do happen, most people will spit at you.
And that’s what matters to me.
The best guide we have for how people would treat you under those circumstances, is how they treat those who are now defenseless. People fundamentally don’t really care that animals die in gas chambers and spend their whole lives stuck in cages in their own manure. Instead, they deploy psychological techniques to other those animals.
Autists like Greta Thunberg and Adam Lanza, are people in whom the pursuit of reason has essentially broken the brain free from their own individual game-theoretic optimal strategy for individual success. Greta wants to keep the planet habitable, Adam Lanza orients himself towards an extinctionist philosophy: He concludes that human life itself is a mistake.
Now I don’t endorse this sort of violence, because it is simply a new form of cruelty.
However, I do think cases like the Leigh Leigh incident tell us something about human nature that most people don’t like to confront. You have to confront the fact, that the community just more or less seems to believe that this is just Leigh Leigh’s own fault. You have to confront, what that tells you about human nature.
Even the feminists don’t really like to think about what the real implications here are. The feminists tend to think that men are kind of educated by a patriarchal society, to think of women as less than human, which culminates in rape. To solve that, men have to be taught not to rape women.
I don’t think this is really a right analysis. I don’t want to live next to someone, who has to be taught not to rape me. The idea that the only thing that stops people from abusing you is that someone teaches them not to abuse you, is a terrifying thought.
Instead, we need a more fundamental analysis of how human really operate. And it seems to me, that humans tend to just roughly pursue whatever strategy maximizes their ability to pass on their own genes.
Billionaires almost universally tend to remarry younger women after a while, which is generally not possible for low status men, for whom divorce or their wife’s menopause ends their opportunities for reproduction. So, men will be inclined to seek wealth. If women wanted to have sex with Walmart greeters, there would be a lot more Walmart greeters.
Similarly, for males who have no real chances of acquiring the sort of wealth that would make women want to reproduce with them, rape may simple be part of a strategy that maximizes their chances of passing on their genes. Rape tends to happen more often when women are ovulating. It also tends to happen mostly to women during their prime reproductive years.
I think you could go a step further and say that the condition of humans being nice, is generally just a product of them simply having no power. I’m pretty sure Kim Jong Un was generally nice as a teenage boy too.
There’s something extremely unusual, about those of us who stopped eating meat at a young age, that is, in childhood. I think this is the most clear signal that someone is genuinely inclined towards organic empathy towards others without needing any sort of reward for it, instead of simply operating in accordance to their Darwinian optimal survival strategy.
However, this is at most perhaps 1% of the population.
As far as I am concerned, the other 99% of humanity is overdue for bird flu. It really can’t come soon enough.
I suddenly refused to eat red meat and pork as a child because it somehow seemed wrong and have never eaten it since, but I’m not such a purist as RR. Chicken tastes like dinosaur and smoked salmon is a gift from the gods.
What I’d like to bring up is the unbelievable power and control that we humans have over the entire planet.
We decide which species we allow to live or die, from the largest (whales) to the smallest (bacteria), even to the point of extinction. We can use ANY of them for food, fuel, clothing, oil, or medical experiments at our whim.
There are roughly 420 million tons of cattle as opposed to only about 20 million tons of wild land mammals in the world because we want it that way.
The scariest sound in the world to most animals is the sound of humans talking to each other. Just having a conversation on the trail will usually send them running, from a million years of bad experience, except for those that have been recently protected from apex human predation and have become naive.
Three African Maasai carrying sticks can walk up and commandeer a fresh kill from a pride of lions. The lions will take off running, and for good reason.
And can you imagine being the pet of another SPECIES?? Humans make pets of anything.
On the gentler side, when an animal becomes truly desperate, from sickness or to try to save its young, as a last resort it will seek out human help because we are known to be powerful, the freakish givers of death and life.
Humans are the pets of fungi and shrooms 😉
Have you read Cloud Atlas? Similar analysis there. Human society is inherently predatory. All we can do is try to be better as individuals
Very interesting article. I think some evolutionary psychologists would say something different. We are by nature altruistic, because societies of altruists are successful and their member’s benefit. While societies of pure sociopaths do not function well, and all lose except the top ones. Think of Khan’s society and Captain Kirk’s society.
Kermit, altruism is the downfall of White people. It works for us but when it’s extended to outsiders it’s a disaster.
I think those evolutionary psychologists would be wrong. The man who has the most known descendants alive today, is Genghis Khan. We know how he achieved this: You either submit to him, or you face extermination.
This isn’t a product of civilization either, anthropologists observed very high rates of violence in the tropics among hunter gatherers too. Around a quarter of men died violent deaths in some parts of the Amazon and Papua.
Societies don’t really select altruists or sociopaths. They just select people who are good at fitting within the in-group, while reducing numbers of their competing out-groups.
In the west we became very bad at reducing numbers of our out-groups, as during the two world wars we just lost most men who want to reduce the out-group, so we were left mostly with naively optimistic and opportunistic men as a result.
> We are by nature altruistic, because societies of altruists are successful and their member’s benefit. While societies of pure sociopaths do not function well, and all lose except the top ones.
What is “evolution by natural selection” if not “survival of the TOP ONES”
Fantastic and well thought out article RR. I don’t agree with a lot of it but that’s irrelevant. You’ve made me think.
This is you at your best mate, thank you.
There’s all this talk about why it is right or wrong to eat plants. But the simple reality of why almost all people eat plants is obvious:
-Plants can’t defend themselves. [*]
-None of us have to fear being mistaken for plants.
[*] Well, indeed they can. Plants don’t like to be eaten. Most of them in its natural wild form are more or less toxic.
Humans developed techniques of selection, cultivation and food processing (like fermentation, cooking) to be able to eat potatoes, wheat and most vegetables.
Animals are more digestible. And there is one more reason why we eat them: in colder climates there are no plants available all year round. Animals are some kind of “food preservation”…
You will see your loved ones soon. Everyone lost, they are on the other side! Those that have to gain most from the current living arragments canot fathom the end. LOL you have a pension, good luck!
What comes to mind are people I worked with who during Covid forced us to special testing protocols for not fitting in to take the jabs, as if we were problems to be dealt with. I could see how a logical next step could have been camps and punishment, which we kinda saw in some places.
Yes, so many of us will be cruel if it means fitting in.
I recall a poignant convo with a coworker where I said something about Covid things and how everyone just stopped playing the pandemic game. He just claimed the party line and everything is “normal” again. I lost all respect for these people after they were crazy ex-girlfriend abusive to those who wouldn’t go along with the ‘program’. Then pretended that nothing happened and pretended that they weren’t acting like sociopaths during those two years of government-imposed lockdowns.
Follow along and do the thing and you’re ‘normal’.
Resist and you’re a Juden in the 1930s.
We’re demons in skin suits.
Apparently if you are female the best predictor of whether you will be raped is whether you were raped in the past. An acquaintance of mine told me of a friend of hers who had been raped six times. Neither of us knew what to make of this. The one time I was in absolute peril I decided the answer was to pretend I was sick; I started coughing and gagging like crazy relentlessly; the guy hesitated and then said “oh, you sound really sick” and left. I was really pleased with myself.
That wouldn’t work on me, Karen, if I was trying to rayp you
That wouldn’t work on me, Karen, if I was trying to rayp you
“That wouldn’t work on me, Karen, if I was trying to rayp you”
That’s a very creepy thing to say.
Reminds me of something an older male friend of mine said to me back in the late 1990s. He made some weirdo comment about a close friend of his being in a long-term relationship with his girlfriend, and that they were so close that he could have sex with her when she was asleep, and he thought that was a good thing.
I was like, what? She’s unconscious, that’s like fucking rape. I could never be friends with him after that.
Just to clarify, my friend wasn’t having sex with his friends girlfriend, at least not that I’m aware of. But he thought it was okay that his friend fucked his girlfriend while she was asleep.
Just so you know, that’s not cool. Unless your girlfriend made it clear to you, as in actually verbally consenting with full conscious awareness that she’s okay with it, that act will always be construed as an act of rape. And rape is not sex. Rape is not love. Rape is sexual violence. It’s an act of war. It’s never justified, and it’s always evil.
Vomit is an option!!!!!
This is pretty much what everyone knows: good people operate gas chambers, etc
There are two categories of people who are less likely to. Those who have elaborately worked out ethical systems, and those who are deeply religious.
Years ago I was in Grand Central Station and some tall white guy started moaning loudly, “I can barely move and I have to catch my train and I can’t carry my bag!!!” I looked up and all around me were signs posted reading, “it is illegal to help people with their bags” (or something of the sort that was directly on point). My first thought was, “Oh, man, someone is running a bystander experiment.” So I crabbily went and picked up the guy’s bags and the papers he had scattered around him and he followed me for about a hundred yards and then miraculously someone appeared out of nowhere to take his stuff for him. The person who took his stuff said to me “there should be more people like you.” I wanted to tell him that I wished it hadn’t been a bystander experiment because then I could really prove to myself that I was good at telling the world to fuck itself, but I just went back and got my duffle bag and dragged it to my gate. Apparently social psychologists are bad about intervening because they think they are being tricked into participating in a bystander experiment, so this was kind of meta.
Surely the question would be, “how did you get your bag here in the first place?”
That’s a good point, but this was NYC in the 1980s and you really did not make eye contact or talk with anyone, you just did what you needed to do and moved on, it was a dangerous place, and that carried over to everything.
somewhat OT: have you ever read “ishmael?”
This article is simply sublime.
so animals can’t defend themselves hence we eat them. And Plants?
your brain is crippled you predatory plant eater.
It amazes me how fragmented your mind is.
Everything is just atoms looking for a new arrangement. That’s it. Nothing else.
once again a story from where I grew up.. the Leigh Leigh thing was absolutely huge in the news for years. I was only a kid when this happened but I’ve been to “stocko” beach many times.
Have you heard about the inner monologue, and mind’s eye [revelations]?
I can understand the source from which this post comes.
However, there are enough instances of compassion and loving-kindness to demonstrate to each of us our own potential, and which show us we are not reducible to Darwinian organisms seeking to maximise our own fitness. If you succumb to the imperatives of the ego, then you ultimately build a cage for the soul.
What is more, our own thoughts, words and actions can ripple out to change others around us and make the world a better place, creating a virtuous circle as the ripples come back to ourselves.
Try it – go out, be kind and positive.
https://www.altn.news/en/iran-executes-seven-men-for-gang-rape-after-victim-refuses-to-forgive
Just wondering on your verdict on this one. Woman grouped raped, perps caught, she refuses to grant clemency ( she could demand blood money), perps hanged. Should she have been nicer? Or everything went as it should?
Why did “Native Americans” eat Elk? Not nice at all.
Humans eat plants and animals because it’s a dietary requirement. Indigenous diets all include animal protein and fat. Read Weston A. Price. Societies that didn’t eat animals were physically weak and died out. Viruses must have hosts. Lions eat zebras. Humans must eat animals and plants.
It then becomes a question of how you do it. Do you honor the animal and be grateful? Or are you needlessly cruel? Do you buy natural humanely raised animal products? Or do you buy the CAFO products? Don’t let vegans guilt you for eating animals. Be grateful for the gift the animal is. Accept your place in the cycle of life. When it is your turn to die, the other animals and the plants will eat you.
And that is some seriously screwed up thinking. Meat eaters are evil because rape. What? Yes there are bad people. Most people are fairly good. Many are simply untested. Covid tested them and they were found wanting. Maybe they will do better next time. Maybe not. Everyone will die, in time, and God will sort them out. Meanwhile we all need to make our little corner of the world a better place.
And as for that business that people eat meat because animals cant defend themselves. Humans have been hunting animals for tens of thousands of years, and of course the animals can defend themselves. Have you not seen the bones of ancient hunters? Crushed bones, holes in their skulls, severe injuries. Hunting was perilous.
One final thing. Vegetarianism degrades your health. Any mitigation of this is due to modern food technology including vitamin pills. In the pre-modern world, vegetarianism was a guaranteed early grave or worse, madness, including depression, anxiety, mental illness, suicide, homicide, and both in-group and out-group aggression. You have a very dark view of people. Darker than is justified. You are vegetarian. This is a textbook combination. But you are smart and clearly able to do the mental work to learn about this. For your sake, I hope you get started soon.
You’re not a hunter gatherer, you’re a profligate using ancient cultures to justify your degeneracy. If you’re living in a cave and using a flint spear to fend off the wolves then you can justify eating meat. You eat animals locked up in cages and fed steroids and antibiotics a modern context. You are a godless wastrel.
>Muh Grass fed.
Yeah, grass isn’t the only thing those beings are being fed. Wild Aurochs didn’t survive off just grass anyway, but that’s all that can be grown on a ranch with poor quality nutrient sparse wasteland soil (every modern ranch due to modern agricultural practices).
The caveman meat was much higher quality than modern slop meat that you fill your palette with. The “grass fed” is a scam, the grass isn’t better than the soybean fed cows. Modern carnivores need to eat raw organs to not die, that’s how low quality the meat is.
No you can’t survive off hunted meat in the modern day, if all of you LSWM retards tried that the deer would go extinct in three days. You have sinned and raped the world, now is the time to be humble and to eat a salad or a fruit.
Mushrooms are delicious meat alternatives, slather a portobello in steak sauce and you’ll have a good time. You don’t have to eat Impossible Meat, there’s plenty of natural foods that are environmentally friends, they’re called vegetables, fungus, and fruit. You have better access to a diverse range of nutritious non-animal foods due to the invention of something called “agriculture”
The invention of “agriculture” is why you’re not fighting a lion with a spear right now in-fact.
The animals are selectively bred GMO monsters too, if that’s your complaint about the plants you should only be eating hippo and auroch meat. Every time you eat farmed meat or drink milk you’re filling yourself with antibiotics and steroids.
“I need meat to get strong!”
Yes, male to male tranny homosexuals who are in a bodybuilding competition with other dudes need steroids so they can bloat up in size and become ugly monsters. Eat your meat, Bronze Age Pervert homosexual types love the look.
Your daughter will grow up with a mustache and will think she’s transgender, but who cares about her right?
> you’re a profligate using ancient cultures to justify your degeneracy.
No. I’m a modern human who is genetically and evolutionarily unchanged from my prehistoric ancestors when it comes to dietary needs. Ancient humans ate what they did because of their biological needs. Modern humans eat all manner of unhealthy substitutes based on cultural and personal preference.
Just in case you are thinking that you are protecting your daughter from biological damage by guiding her to be vegetarian, I have bad news for you. Women who don’t eat sufficient high quality protein suffer from a long list of disorders resulting from hormone dysregulation. It’s common for vegetarian women to suffer in this way. I know I did. Why vegetarian women? Because it’s nearly impossible to get the quantity and quality of needed protein from a vegetarian diet. I was a vegetarian for years. It made me very very sick and it was excruciatingly painful. I spent thousands and thousands of dollars on medical care to undo that damage. To fix what when wrong, I had to start eating CLEAN humanely raised animal products in very large quantity. It was gross and really expensive. I never did undo all the damage, though I did undo a lot.
There is no amount of guilt trip you can lay on me that would convince me to commit slow torturous suicide by becoming a vegetarian again. I made my peace with the human animal body I inhabit and it’s gross needs. Be advised, it took until I was 40 years old for the cumulative damage to be correctly diagnosed as resulting from my vegetarian habits. 20 years later it’s still causing medical problems for me. I hope you and your family are younger and can benefit from my experience without the prolonged agony I have endured.
I don’t know who you thought you were addressing. Apparently a male tranny bodybuilder. The world is full of people who are having a different experience than you. Your solutions are not a one-size fits all. Other people aren’t all the low-information retards you seem to think they are. Next time someone says something you disagree with, stop and ask them why.
Sorry, I have a habit of assuming everyone else I meet here is a incel in their twenties who is a sorta right leaning since that’s the crowd that introduced me here. There’s a lot of older women here apparently. Twitter ruined me in that respect, I’ll be more mindful in not making assumptions. Anyway.
Prehistoric people weren’t able to go the grocery store, they ate what they needed to in survive, not according to what’s most optimal health wise and ethics wise. Your body evolves to make certain things more palatable but food still has biochemical reactions and some foods are superior no matter what your forefathers personally ate. Cavemen ate other human being semi-regularly, you do not need to eat neanderthal meat in order to be healthy just because that’s how your ancestors scraped by. Many ancient people were scavengers who subsisted off rotting meat and fruit, some tribes still live by this diet today, doesn’t make it ideal. If you want to use cavemen to justify your dietary habits actually eat like a caveman rather than eating factory farmed steroid meat and processed cheese which is evolutionarily novel. The animals your ancestors ate were not selectively bred, locked in cages their whole lives, and pumped full of growth hormones and fed a diet of grass and soyfeed.
Evolution is a real process and you are not biologically the same as hunter gatherers. The ability to process milk is a recent adaption that only came into existence a few thousand years ago for a minority of people. The idea that evolution stopped when we started farming is absurd. We have evolved in a direction to more optimally process cereal grains. People who couldn’t thrive off the farming lifestyle were out-competed, and sent to the fringes to live as pastoralists; but the pasoralist way of life is the inferior one. Mongolians who eat red meat and dairy all day don’t live as long or healthy as Japanese people who eat mostly veggies, grains, and a little seafood. Pastoralist cultures also seem to generally be poorer and lower IQ. The pastoralist diet of meat and cheese is simply inferior in evolutionary, ethical, and practical terms.
Honestly I think most women aren’t equipped to handle veganism without a man guiding them every step of the way and making sure they actually eat what’s nutritious rather than whatever they feel like. Low IQ men have problems with veganims for similar reasons but I think even High IQ women are too lazy to put the effort into it. You can get all the amino acids, fat, protein, and nutrients you need from plants. Meat is easy because you can eat the same shit every single day and get along fine enough until you stroke out in your 50s and 60s (Of-course we don’t typically blame such things on eating meat, even though that actually is the case.) Women are shit cooks, sorry, men are better at food than you.
Also dairy is the worst thing health wise, you call yourself vegetarian rather than vegan; if you were eating cheese for twenty years no wonder you had issues. You would have been better off eating steaks instead, but it would have been ideal if you ate lentils. Anyway, you should be happy you’re not dealing with a stroke that made you go blind like many women you age are dealing with after eating burgers their whole lives. My Grandmother won’t stop eating burgers as they slowly are killing her and making her grow blind.
Also girls who are raised on modern animal products grow mustaches and end up trans. Talk about ancient hunter gatherer ideal diets, the reality is that the girls are growing up with facial hair because all their food as steroids in it that fucks with their testosterone and estrogen levels.
I totally agree with you that modern animal products are dangerously polluted with steroids and other compounds that mess up your hormones. You may not have noticed that I said it’s important to eat clean animal products.
Assuming that your gma’s issues are a result of her diet and not in spite of her diet, then unless she is eating clean animal products, it’s the steroids/chemicals/etc in the meat and not the meat itself that is the culprit. Worth noodling.
Let me share an important revelation from my dietary education. Humans vary widely in what they can digest and what they thrive on. Humans are not biologically equivalent. There is no “we” covering the whole of humanity when it comes to evolutionary adaptation.
The ability to digest milk products is very high in some groups and very low/non-existent in others. A few years ago I read a paper which showed convincingly that the further north you go from the middle east, the less able the people are to digest grains. People whose ancestors come from the middle east are more able to digest grains without those grains causing health problems. The starkest difference was between Northern Europeans, who couldn’t digest grains well, and the Middle Easterners, who could. Why? because the introduction of grains as a food staple to the Middle East came about 5000-8000 years before it came to Northern Europe. In several thousand years N. Europeans may catch up, but in the meantime a diet high in grains is damaging for them.
I think the idea that all humans are biologically equivalent is an idea that helps us see each other as belonging to the same group, and that reduces inter-group friction and violence, which is a valuable benefit. The biological reality, however, is that humanity is composed of a multitude of races, which are different enough that we can’t all thrive on the same diet. Much ill health could be mitigated if people studied their ancestral diets, and experimented with shifting away from foods their ancestors never ate and toward foods their ancestors ate often. This strategy has been tried by a lot of sick people, and they have found it healing. It’s not a cure-all, but it helps a lot to stop damaging yourself. Also worth noting that you have to look back at least 500 years to identify an ancestral diet. The last 500 years, and especially the last 200 years, are the years in which many peoples forgot how to eat.
I’m English so I’m not a primitive that needs baby cow milk to survive; I can process grains fine. I’m lactose intolerant in-fact, I was acting like a retard when I used to consume dairy. My people conquered the world for tea because we got sick of water and beer.
It must suck to be a dinosaur honestly.
The current selective pressure nature seems to be doing is selecting against genes that can’t process grains. Sorry but that’s evolution. The people who drink milk are making themselves vulnerable to bird flu. The people who eat meat get fat and stroke out until they go blind. The only clean source of meat is wild game. Everything else has been too modified by the hands of men to disastrous results.
This post reminds me of three things that would turn anyone into a misanthropic curmudgeon.
Firstly, there’s a story in Gabor Mates book ‘In The Realm of Our Hungry Ghosts’ about a young Canadian woman named Sabrina. She grew up “raised” by her grandparents and abused by her uncles.
At the age of 15 she decides to head for Toronto in search of her estranged mother. She managed to save up $500 for the trip. After a week or two she finds her mother who steals the remaining $300 before sticking a needle in Sabrina’s arm and legging it.
Can you imagine your own mother doing that to you? For the next two decades Sabrina hustled the streets turning tricks, broken and addicted.
Some people lead truly tragic lives.
Secondly, this post reads like an autistic version of the Charles Bukowski poem ‘The Genius of the Crowd’. That poem really hit home during the scamdemic. Shopkeepers would tell me they wish I would die for not playing their game of wearing a diaper on my face.
Thirdly, there’s an English film showcasing the Genovese effect and victimising those weaker than you just like in the case of poor Leigh Leigh. The film is called ‘Dead Man’s Shoes’ and is more horrifying than any of the snuff films the readers of this blog like to watch. Go into the film blind, don’t read any synopsis and enjoy.