Trolls, Truth, Tim (Osman)

My first new YouTube video since being deleted. Includes a monologue on the unnecessary nature of ‘truth’, the power of beliefs, why people are so easily triggered, and related topics.


JLB19008 – Trolls, Truth, Tim (Osman) (20-May-2019)

PODCAST: Tim Osman speaks with Mick West —
PODCAST: F.A.R.T. episode  where they discuss Tim Osman/IPS —
VIDEO: Truth is the Greatest Troll —
PODCAST: JLB, Timmy, Ged Skeptic, Gempanda —
PODCAST: JLB, Timmy, Adam Moyer, Cathexis —


I’ll be chatted with Tim live on his channel on Tuesday night (U.S. time).

See the video and mp3 files here:

Updated 26-May-2019 to include link to podcast.


60 thoughts on “Trolls, Truth, Tim (Osman)

  • 21-May-2019 at 1:24 am

    When you do this new hangout I only hope you don’t suffer the same treatment on your YT channel as Del and his, “Beyond The Imaginary Curve” channel, when Mr Osman couldn’t match or beat him intellectually he porn bombed him multiple times. Maybe he only does that to Flat Earther’s but who knows when someone like this gets triggered, they get triggered. As you are about 1000 times smarter than Del then, Oh boy.

      • 21-May-2019 at 5:11 pm

        I was watching the streams when it happened, but nothing would surprise me. This was a good while ago and you know my stance on FE now. I look forward to hearing your discussion, I can honestly say I was impressed with Tim Osmans chat with Mick West. It would be great if he continues in this vein as that would show the world he is not the person many perceive him to be, and everyone deserves a chance to shine when they clearly have a talent for it.

  • 21-May-2019 at 5:43 am

    Is Tim Osman the guy who’s avatar/second account name in Youtube is somekinda smiley face/ohm character?

      • 21-May-2019 at 5:20 pm

        He was def trolling a few months ago,I can’t remember which video it was but he left a comment saying “JLB is lying” or sth .. I asked him to provide evidence, after that he deleted his comment 🙂

        • 21-May-2019 at 7:23 pm

          He is still trolling to some degree, there’s no doubt about that.

          Just look at what he has posted in the infobox for my chat with him tomorrow:

          John le bon is a self proclaimed “worlds greatest skeptic” and surely is a Jesuit trained in Delphi techniques. John was most well known for his perpetuation of the flat earth psy-op through the original flat earth show called “Ball Earth Skeptic”, where he hosted well known shills and tricked nearly every listener to think he was a flat earther. Johns claim to fame included speaking with dirty dirth’s little rabbit hole and other beta males such as reds rhetoric, Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent and many others. In this episode we will surely touch on topics that he foolishly denies such as the non-existence of dinosaurs, heliocentricity, no planes on nine-one-one and much more!

          Once a troll, always a troll.

          But Tim seems to be moving from candid trolling towards genuine truth-trolling.

          Speak the truth, troll the humans, as we say in muh see-eye-aye a.k.a. Super Agency.

          • 23-May-2019 at 10:40 am

            Now he’s more-or-less a full on fakeologist so he was probably trolling for views by pretending to be exposing John Le Bon, obvious Jesuit trained Australian handled by the even more plain-to-see ‘Tavistock Tim.’ Or maybe he believed you were a nutty fool back then demanding exposure by real troofers like him, then later changed his mind when he himself realized a fully media-fakery-wise woke level simplified everything down to its essence: hoaxery and con-artistry on a vast scale using the apparatus of mass-media which most people foolishly put most of their trust in even when they say they don’t.

            Between so-called correct information and your understanding of it in order to benefit your life, stands the MIDDLE where this information is perverted and changed to harm you and keep you weak. Most Doctors of today and maybe even all-time are simply middle-men con-artists who don’t have to be good at the con game because the entire system is a con-game. Once that diploma is on the wall, millions will put their con-fidence in you and no matter how badly you take them for all their money ‘officially’ and according to the rules, the ‘rules’ of holy in-doctor-ination, while slowly killing them through unnecessary medications, operations and bad advice, they still come back for more.

            It turns into a sadomasochistic freak show. In the end, as absurd as it is, people like my mother and other hypochondriacs actually want to be sick so they can have some hospital drama in their boring lives, tales of woe they can gossip about with their friends on the phone, if they have any friends left still undead from going to hospitals and taking deliberately bullshit advice.



            When I think: ‘I must go google that,’ I might simultaneously or a split second after think ‘joogle that’ instead as a way of satirizing my reliance on that monopolistic search engine, which using simply ‘I must google that’ might imply to myself, my own subconscious mechanism, and this whole thing I just wrote, this quick analysis is a thought i might have right after. Then I might have a two hour philosophical discussion about this three-to-ten second ‘event’ inside my head as it interacted with and was instigated by events already seemingly present in the the outside whirled, such as the existence of google and similar gaggle-inducing institutions of brain-washing. It is also go-oggle which is code for go oggle free porn and other titillations and distractions, but that’s yet another philosophical discussion.



  • 23-May-2019 at 11:20 am

    I attribute the return of the fully relaxed JLB voice to Tied stick or a similar meditative herb, less hectic living and easier access to more feminine vibes that complement the masculine rather than fight it in the lands of the orient where he currently dwells.

  • 24-May-2019 at 6:06 am

    Conspiracy theorists, especially when they don’t read serious books which take lots of reflection, sometimes a lifetime’s worth of them, to write, but get most of their information from you tube videos usually requiring little more than a few hours’ worth of half-ass effort, can be called spiritual hypochondriacs. These folks are just overly afraid of doomsday scenarios rather than physical illness.

    Fear is their drug and when on it, emotions are so high that rational thinking is severely impaired. They were hooked on it early in their childhood through what transpired in the MIDDLE realm where correct and healthy information was deliberately ‘spun’ with trauma-inducing dis-information and confusion, enough confusion so that everything became believable and nothing clearly knowable. This unstable foundation then bred constant paranoia and the need for more and more fear injections every day to justify spiritual hypochondriasis, which, of course, sooner or later also affects physical health. When they turn to the alt-media, they find the same manipulations, the same drugs, just in different form, a form that strokes their ego more, so that’s where they go for the best ‘stuff,’ the Alex Jones fear-drugs being the heroin of the industry. lol

    When the confusion of one brand of fear-inducing dis-info reigns, such as eat more vegetables and fruits or die from heart attack (absolute nonsense, vegetable oils and sugar are what cause heart disease, not cholesterol), they turn to the MIDDLE realm for a different brand of dis-info in the alt-media such as “raw veganism” and other completely unnatural and anti-human ideas, states of fasting and detoxing confused with ‘health.’ Veganism is literally fear of healthy food because this healthy food came directly from a dead animal rather than indirectly through the millions of acres that had to be cultivated and its natural habitats and dwelling animals massacred, just so salads could be eaten by duped slaves who can then virtue signal their ‘moral superiority’ to others similarly dis-informed. This way they deteriorate and die very early at around 75 years average age whether or not they get snapped up by the hospitals. If they didn’t do this and ate a raw animal foods diet, they would probably easily live to at least 125 years old if not 150.

    If a raw carnivore diet can make a 50 year old man feel like a 25 year old but with the wisdom he has at 50, this is literally the fountain of youth. Only when you do that do you realize how truly TOXIC most cooked food is. Cooking food literally ‘cooks’ you, turns you into a cook and a nutjob. What happens when you go raw carnivore is similar to what happens after you quit alcohol and become physically very healthy: the utter nutritional uselessness of even one bottle of beer is very strongly felt and the need to avoid it becomes stronger every day because you don’t want to give up the feeling of well-being achieved. Even one beer threatens to destroy this hard-earned stability.

    By hard-earned I mean your whole life’s worth of mistakes, mostly made because of cleverly peddled lies misleading you floated in the MIDDLE section that short circuit any correct information from reaching in pure form to truly enlighten. With raw carnivore, even one cooked meal, whether all that greasy or not, will not only make you feel worse afterwards on the inside but also sometimes make you break out with at least a couple of zits in strategic locations and other skin problems to let you know you are on the wrong course. Your body is speaking to you all the time, but its voice has been muffled by an avalanche of disinfo warping the value system.

    This ‘course’ isn’t even visible if you live your life based on the standard set of beliefs you have been indoctrinated with through the MIDDLES of both the ‘mainstream’ and alternative news-gathering or rather news-perverting services, hooked on fear, unstable, wasted, and unable to find your way home.

    Read the comments section. All the ‘boomers’ now in their 60s who did so much drugs and alcohol they thought they would die in their ’30s. Some claiming they still ‘live on the edge, meaning they occasionally still binge drink, blackout and wake up in their own piss and vomit — what a great savior that alcohol is, huh? Literally the worst drug in the world and the only one universally legal in (((Christ-tarded))) countries, and/or do coke, speed, opiates and other hard drugs once-in-a-while, since they have no way of reaching a ‘high’ state through healthy means.

  • 24-May-2019 at 4:14 pm

    Fear is their drug and when on it, emotions are so high that rational
    thinking is severely impaired.

    Cf. Paul, letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 2

    14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

    To paraphrase JLB, the bible might be a hoax but there are some true things in there.

    It is through “fear of death” that we are subject to lifelong slavery. The Devil has the ‘power of death’ that is what he wields over the people. The Devil is also known as the slanderer and the ‘author of lies’

    He slanders reality through the lies and hoaxes that pervade the system. Those who see through a baby hoaxes but get stuck there are in one more illusion. The lie is that they have ‘woken up’ whilst still being slaves. A promotion to house negro if you will.

    In fact, their fear of death and suffering has been ratcheted up and their bondage is even deeper. However, it is always darkest before the dawn, for some at least.

    I would also posit that suicide is one more manifestation of the fear of death. Like a Richard Dawkins still being as much ruled by the idea of God as a fundamentalist believer.

    The Devil, for me, would be one side of the coin of the illusions we project onto reality, like the Wizard of Oz.

    The other side of the coin would, perhaps, be a benevolent God trying to wake us up.

    The god of this world would be Hermes.

    The world is not maya, nor illusion, but our ideas about it are.

    • 27-May-2019 at 7:29 am

      You cannot be a high performance human on a consistent basis if you do not first and foremost have a high performance diet. And which woman in her right mind would give up a Ferrari to go drive a Volkswagen? Religion and especially the Christian religion is the Volkswagen concession for those who failed to become the Ferraris.

      It’s as simple as that.

      Why did they fail? Because they had the w-rung (rung by Pavlov’s bell) physical diet, which led to weakness and then to the wrong mental diet which led to what? A clunky-ass Volkswagen that’s what. Your card that you failed, not in terms of what ‘society’ considers ‘success’ since that’s all just more framing and conditioning, but in terms of what the Natural World considers success and communicates to you through your senses and feelings of well-being or not.

      This is the absolute junk diet that the fictional con-man you refer to ate:

      If you eat that diet you are guaranteed to be a groveling slave and nothing more.

      A weak person pretending to be strong rather than a strong person who has no ‘fear of death.’

      When you are physically degenerating and weak, that’s when you have the most fear because you know you can be preyed upon and defeated physically and killed by those stronger and need protection from the Alphas of your tribe who are preferred by and have first choice reproduction rights with all the healthiest women of your tribe. It’s just the natural order. The strong go with the strong and the healthiest are automatically also the most aesthetically pleasing to the eye and senses in terms of sexual attraction.

      The meek shall inherit nothing.

      If you eat ONLY RAW WILD CAUGHT FISH you will be ok but if you eat the rest of that junk your hippie (((savior))) ate, you will be weak, crumbling and shaking in your pants and then mentally trying to fight this with ‘spiritual’ strength.

      There is no such thing as lasting ‘spiritual strength’ without a proper raw animal foods diet. Sure, you might have a few years of physically weak and degenerating and counterfeit ‘peace of mind’ and ‘strength’ if you are heavy into religion but that peace will not last since your body and your mind have only ‘hope’ as fuel.

      Hope is an irresistible bait, especially when not paired with the actual flesh and blood STRENGTH and SKILL being necessary to its achievement.

      In other words, Christianity tells you, you can be physically weak and still be strong. It sells you a contradiction, a lie. Your mind cannot overcome matter but will fully succumb to matter if you have no proper fuel in your system but only ‘faith.’ That is the biggest con-job in the world. Faith works ONLY if you have the STRONGEST nutrition and IRON discipline.

      It is a highly pleaureable and rewarding state to be in once you master the discipline necessary for freedom. There is no sexual repression involved. If history is to be believed at all, it is a PAGAN state, not a neurotic Christian, Moslem or Hindu one. Different conjobs for different folks.

      Your mental strength will not last without maximum physical nutrition and discipline because your brain is the most important part of your physique and without at least 24 eggs worth of cholesterol eaten every day, your body has to expend lots of energy producing cholesterol because without it you will die. When you eat the cholesterol from outside, your body is free to conserve that energy for your brain and body to put to better use.

      Eating Fish is useless if you eat bread and legumes with it because the latter will destroy with anti-nutrients and toxicity any benefit from the former. Go ahead and soak your beans all you want. You can eat all the beans you want and have gas to last an eternity of wet farts, but will never get the nutritional content out of beans that you get out of even one half-pound fillet of Raw Wild Caught Salmon or even cooked Salmon. But raw is so much better that once you experience it, you will laugh at people wasting their money and destroying their food for the sake of their conditioned tastes. They might as well burn their money.

      Try eating just small sandwich and see how your stomach bloats in protest against the poison you just fed it.

      This is what I ate yesterday with ZERO bloating of the stomach afterwards:

      Quarter Pound of Raw grass-fed and grass-finished Sirloin Steak with an entire stick of Raw grass-fed butter – Seasoned only with high quality mineral salt (Himalayan Pink right now which has 82 minerals attached but there are even better quality salts sold right on Amazon which everyone with an internet connection has access to). I am anything but afraid of good quality Salt and use as much of it as I can. I thank Frank the Salt Guy and James Di Nicolantonio for deconditioning me in this respect.

      Where was I? Yeah, breakfast! lol

      Chased the meat with 24 Raw Pastured Eggs – 1 bottle of raw fermented watermelon ice tea (komboocha) sipped through the teeth in controlled amounts and not gulped – Nothing cooked. Almost no concessions to ‘taste’ except the watermelon tea which is sweet and tart and fizzy. The eggs and the steak and the butter have little taste but give you huge and I mean MASSIVE amounts of energy after you let it settle for about 20 minutes while kicking back in zero-gravity or any other ergonomically correct not-too-comfy chair.

      That’s just for Breakfast –

      1 entire 16 ounce of bottle of Raw Kefir for lunch about 8 hours later for ‘lunch.’ Finished in 5 minutes while others are busy eating ‘tasty’ garbage that deforms their bodies slowly over the course of 20 to 30 years before they can’t function anymore and croak.


      1 pound of Raw Wild Caught Salmon

      5 Raw Wild Caught Oysters

      1 pound of Raw Grass-Fed and Grass-Finished Rib Eye Steak with 2 entire sticks of Raw Butter

      Do you know how much that cost?

      At least 45 dollars.

      You probably can’t afford that for a reason.

      They want you to be sick and weak or, at best, moderately functional for a few short years without being optimal in any way and then deterioration, debt and its phonetic corollary death.

      Do you want to build a body that has less than 10% body fat with bulging muscles and six-pack abs that’s just as fast and quick as it is strong? Do you want to achieve this with the least amount of effort or energy wasted so that you can use that energy for other things?

      Don’t fool yourself. Without a raw animal foods diet from the best sources you can be as hard-working and dedicated as you want and your results will be mediocre and you will waste too much energy getting there. With raw animal foods, you barely have to exercise and you will still reach your optimal weight in quick order. WITH exercise and especially High Intensity Intervals which activate HGH (human growth hormone) you will not even believe what’s happening. Your body transforming itself in front of your eyes into something only Michelangelo could have sculpted.

      So who’s afraid of ‘death’ again?

      Is Conan the Barbarian afraid of death? Or is death and debt itself the province of his ‘see-will-eye-zed’ and degenerated hope-baited and weak inferiors?

      • 27-May-2019 at 5:19 pm

        I genuinely see what you’re saying. I used to eat a similar way, though maybe not the raw meat – so I didn’t stray as far from the norm as you.

        I think there is an issue in killing animals to eat though. I think animals are sentient beings, just at a different level to us. Has a dog ever tried to comfort you if you are unhappy? As animals are capable – in my view – of making individual decisions and are not automatons, there is definitely a moral dimension involved in causing them death. Is it necessary that so many living creatures die so that I may eat in what I think is an optimal way? In a survival situation this would change, but there are plenty of other options to meat in our everyday lives. For me nowadays, I don’t want to be part of that system, so no meat.

        Putting the religion points you raise aside, I also want to point you to a couple of difficult cases for what you say. Half (or more) of India is vegetarian, and they are doing ok, no? Second point, gorillas and chimpanzees – which are purported to be our closest relations (take that with an ounce of salt) and that we can also personally verify their similarities to us (body type, greater intelligence than most other animals) – these creatures are mainly vegetarian, eating mainly fruit.

        Back on the religious for a sec… Fruit… Isn’t that what they ate in the garden on Eden? Nowadays, one theory I am playing with is that maybe this is paradise only everyone is mind-controlled/tricked into thinking it’s a sort of hell to be endured.

        Anyway, diet is definitely a corollary with our wider journeys in this world. I think we try to reflect our understandings in the world with our diet and make both more coherent. Here, I’m expressing what I think I understand, and accept your right to do something different.

  • 28-May-2019 at 1:48 am

    I’ve thought about these questions/matters a lot, and have been vegetarian for periods of time during my life.
    Currently, my diet is fairly unique, but it does include a large amount of animal products.
    That said, I feel that diet is a personal thing, and not a “one size fits all” situation.
    A couple of thoughts do come to mind, based on your comment above.

    Has a dog ever tried to comfort you if you are unhappy? As animals are capable – in my view – of making individual decisions and are not automatons, there is definitely a moral dimension involved in causing them death

    If animals are capable of making individual decisions (including dogs), is it “morally” correct for them to eat other animals? Dogs and wolves are predominantly carnivores, after all. Many humans may feed their dogs grains in their homes, but when allowed to make individual decisions about their diets, canines eat meat.

    Also, it is my understanding that plants have their own defense mechanisms built in to prevent being eaten themselves. Once they sense a predator or begin being nibbled upon, they release chemicals designed to prevent further nibbling.
    What do we really know about what a plant “feels”, or if it is ok with being consumed?

    It seems to me that all living things (including plants) “want” to live, and don’t want to be killed/consumed.
    However, life subsists on life… there’s just no way around that. Some of us tend to feel “guilty” about that, which is an interesting idea to ponder, in and of itself.

    Also, recent studies (grain of salt) have shown that 50% of women in India of reproductive age are anemic.
    There are likely many causes for this, but it is possible that a vegetarian diet could be a partial cause.

    • 28-May-2019 at 3:06 am

      I don’t hold that animals can be held to the same account as humans. They cannot work things out like we can even for very simple things – certainly a standard form argument will not get you far with a cat or dog! But, I think they feel like we do, and that maybe they have a purpose of their own here, but it’s not like ours.

      Plants too have a right to life and defend themselves. I see them as a class below animals again, and in my view within the threshold of acceptable living matter to eat. Fruit would be the lowest impact food to eat and that eating it is of benefit to the plant and its reproduction.

      So while I think humans are the most advanced species I know about, I don’t know that we are actually more important than any other life, just that we have different responsibilities. This is where I am on this nowadays, which is a big difference to my previous life, where I’ve previously eaten lots of meat. Even recently would likely have taken up the suggestion to eat it raw as negrentropic does.

      Maybe its a question of what you want in this life. I’m aiming to try to reach a certain understanding, and I’m working from the idea that neutrality in my actions (or at least the attempt) is a prerequisite. While that is my view and current approach, I don’t say I even do it as I would like, nor that it is the right way for others.

      • 28-May-2019 at 6:43 am

        certainly a standard form argument will not get you far with a cat or dog!

        If ability to use standard form argument is the “litmus test” for assigning moral responibility, then we may have to absolve a high % of the human population as well as cats and dogs. 😉

        I don’t know that we are actually more important than any other life, just that we have different responsibilities

        This may indeed be true, however my head starts spinning once I start thinking about specifics. For instance, most of what we eat (domesticated livestock) was basically created and exists, just to be raised and eaten. We can discuss whether this was necessary in the first place, but this is the circumstance we find ourselves in.

        What is best for these animals?
        To not exist, or to never have existed?
        Should we let the domesticated cows all die out as a species?

        Should some group or entity continue to feed and keep these animals, in order that they live as long of lives as possible?
        Should we treat them as humanely as possible (no factory farming, obviously) but still then slaughter them for food?

        If we knew that a cow was going to live a happy, content existence for, say, a year or two, but then was to be slaughtered, is that better or worse than it never having been born, and never experienced the simple, yet presumably pleasant, existence that a humanely kept cow can live?
        These are all questions that I cannot easily answer, and I don’t ask them flippantly, or thinking that I know the answers.

        Maybe its a question of what you want in this life.

        I think that is a fair assumption.
        I’ve mentioned this in the past, so forgive me for those who are re-reading this, but I have gone to a naturopath in the past, who believes that some people are able to thrive on a vegetarian diet, better than others. Basically, the blood type/diet theory.
        I don’t claim to necessarily believe that myself, but as someone who has dealt with different health issues over the course of my life, I have settled on a diet that makes me “feel” the healthiest.
        It happens to include meat.

        Perhaps someone in my position should follow the lead of the women in India, and sacrifice a certain amount of personal health in order to be as “neutral in my actions” as possible?

        I can say that I have chosen to feel as healthy as possible, both mentally and physically. For me, that has included incorporating meat back into my diet. There is a part of me that is uncomfortable with that, so I do my best to buy my meat locally, from farms that claim to use humane practices.
        Like you, I respect that others have made different decisions for themselves.

        Repeating myself again, I would just humbly suggest that if a person is vegan, that they look into supplementing Vitamin K2 (not K1… they are different).

        Best of luck on your path… you seem to have chosen it with purpose, and I admire that! 🙂

        • 28-May-2019 at 3:14 pm

          Interesting thread on eating raw meat. Made me start looking around the internet.

          Came across this article on vice (the bastion of true journalism) about a guy who changed to a raw meat diet.

          The guy slaughters the animal himself. The following exchange takes place:

          And Derek, you’re comfortable personally slaughtering animals?

          Well if an animal lives in accordance with its nature, I have no
          problem ethically slaughtering that animal. But if you raise that
          animal in a pen, and when it’s sick just shoot it up with antibiotics,
          I have real problems with that. It’s not just unfair on the animal,
          it’s unfair on the people who eat it.

          Seems like a reasonable point.

          The problem with forming a standard form argument to develop an ethical argument will be in establishing our premises. Do we know what we are and what animals are? and what the differences between them are if any?

          We can point out the logical inconsistencies in people’s arguments. We can form consistent conclusions from our premises but, again, do we know enough about what we are and can we trust the ‘scientific’ claims we receive through the media?

          In my hyper-religious former life, the community I lived in were vegetarian and had long periods of vegan eating e.g. Lent. From my observations of my self and others it had a feminising effect, a flabbiness of mind, increased passivity and submission, especially in the Lenten periods. Many hymns are sung about quelling the flesh and the passions.

          And yeah, where did the (((Christian Religion))) come from?

          So much of the modern SJW/cultural Marxist phenomenon reminds me of a secular form of Christianity. Christianity has it roots in the religious branch of the tribe, SJWism having its source in a the secular branch of the tribe. Our new religion provided and propagandised by other people for the feminisation and submission of the people. Those more religious minded can have Islam, the ultra-submissive and feminising religion.

          I can see the problems with grain fed, factory farmed meat but his point about if the animal is living in accordance with its nature then the problems seem to slip away.

          I know a lot of people who hunt rabbits, pheasants etc. I was working in an office at the time and chatting with someone about pheasant hunting. One lady started virtue signalling about the cruelty of hunting and how it is disgusting. I knew that she regularly eats cheap supermarket chicken sandwiches for lunch. I pointed out to her that is not shooting and eating a wild pheasant that has lived in the wild its whole life far better than eating a battery farmed chicken.

          Her reply, “I still think hunting is cruel and it should be banned.”

          There you have it.

          • 28-May-2019 at 9:46 pm

            I agree that the diet discussion is interesting, so as I’ve taken an anti-meat position, I’ll take the liberty to respond to a few of the points raised 🙂

            First – I only mentioned using the standard form argument as a joke to illustrate just how different people are to animals 🙂 They are instinctive (which at times I envy!) and just do what they want. They cannot take a considered moral position – let alone consider changing it.

            On the point about bringing these animals into existence to be eaten, and whether it is better to have had some time on earth or not… I could make a point about non-existence and existence not being comparable. However, I will actually respond from the personal and ask – what right do we have to take a life? If its a question of survival or self-defense, I say we have that right. I don’t think I have that right to kill (or to have killed on my account) as a taste preference or on the basis of a belief, say in improved strength.

            Re the guy who only eats raw meat, which he kills himself – I think if you are going to eat meat this is probably the way to do it. You are not deferring to a system to meet your needs, and I am certain the food itself would be far superior.

            As to what we are or what animals are, and whether they are intended to be food or not… if logic and knowledge fail us and we don’t know – and I don’t think it can be possible to find out – then I go with intuition. If your intuition says go for it, in an ideal world you probably go for Derek’s route of growing and slaughtering your own. Comparably, if your intuition says no – then, ideally, you go for growing your own fruit and veg. For myself, following my moral compass/intuition, with regards to animal produce, I now hold that as they seem to have rich internal lives I’m not comfortable with taking their lives for food. From there, I agree that raw is better than cooked.

            Do women in India sacrifice personal health to be neutral?

            On the ‘SJW/cultural marxism’ stuff, I am aware that there is a vegan agenda of sorts. I’m also aware that much vegan food is processed crap that contains a lot of soya produce. Soya is said to be feminising, as I’m sure the hormones in seedless grapes are, and countless other pesticides. I’m not advocating that diet, though probably a small amount of soya is fine, even if I don’t eat it myself. So, I agree that there is a vegan agenda from that group and that the diet that they promote seems to be feminising. For myself, I don’t accept being grouped with SJW vegans, nor do I advocate following a diet high in any processed foods or soya. I’m not ok with declining sperm count or the feminising of men. I would hope that a diet of home-grown pesticide-free fruit and veg would actually achieve increased virility and health (ie the opposite of feminisation) but I can’t personally verify this.

            As a response to the point about ‘SJW/cultural marxism’ also being a form of secular Christianity, I can see that too and I don’t disagree. Trawling through the conspiracy world I also find an antithetical point. You may have heard that apparently slaughter houses are placed in significant locations (on main ley lines) so that the continual blood sacrifice that takes place in them helps frame the world we find. So is it a bunch of vegans mock-Christians, or dark occult blood-sacrificers? Frankly – who the f**k knows? Maybe both.

            Overall, I want to be clear that I do NOT make any moral judgements on those who eat meat – I’m not seeking to pontificate from the high moral ground. Rather, I see this as a personal moral issue that each of us can consider, and as I have considered it I’m prepared to share my thoughts. On this site especially, I appreciate the knowledge and questioning thinking, so I feel happy to outline my position. I’m fine for anything I say to be critiqued, and torn up and thrown away if its incorrect. I actually appreciate the critique and would (try to) incorporate the right stuff. Also while I’ve expressed my position, it is only where I am now – I reserve the right to change and correct it!

            • 29-May-2019 at 2:09 pm

              As to what we are or what animals are, and whether they are intended to be food or not… if logic and knowledge fail us and we don’t know – and I don’t think it can be possible to find out – then I go with intuition.

              Also while I’ve expressed my position, it is only where I am now – I reserve the right to change and correct it!

              Those two quotes jumped out at me as I’m doing some study into the trivium, whilst dealing with my procrastinating habits.

              If I use JLB’s terms of Input > Process > Output, then the trouble I find when I have been studying, is the teachers tend to emphasise being open-minded when gathering the information but there is no real emphasis on scepticism.

              I guess they are implying that the logic stage will remove all inconsistencies but it is possible to provide a logically coherent set of propaganda which will reproduce the desired output. Also, there is a potentially infinite amount of inputs so some filtration of information will be necessary.

              What remains then is intuition and scepticism as a primary filtration device to decide which area of the world to investigate. Perhaps collaboration as a means to introduce us to new perspectives which our indoctrination would have closed us off to.

              To then put the output to an experiment, if it fails to match up to reality, externally or internally, then this output can be looped back in as a new input. This feedback mechanism can be continued to refine our ideas.

              My point being is that I agree that with imperfect knowledge we have to use some sort of intuition to make a start. If we are lost with innumerable roads which have some differences and similarities in appearance than to not remain paralyzed we will need to use some intuition to make a beginning.

              The experiment will be to test the results of our Intuitive/Sceptical Input > Logic > Output > Experiment fed back into a new Input,

              As you said – “I reserve the right to change and correct it.”

              Also with the differences between us one diet may work better for one than for others so the experiment has some particular characteristics.

              The back and forth has made me think of a few things. I’m trying to plan a 30 day raw meat diet as an experiment to get some more data for input.

              One aside – Sorry if my replies are a bit blunt sometimes. Sometimes I think I over caveat my writing and it ends up being convoluted. I try to counteract it by being more direct and then I think it comes across as blunt when it’s not my intention. This interaction was very useful for me in practising thing about my thinking.

              Thank you!

              Aside 2. Working on a dairy farm (which I’m hoping to leave soon), If I was going to give up farmed meat I’d give up farmed dairy first. The meat cows on our farms spend they lives wandering around beautiful meadows with their pals never seeing the farm till they get the bullet in the head.

              The dairy cows are pretty much slaves their own lives then get the bullet when they are no more use. If I had a choice I’d be the meat cow.

    • 28-May-2019 at 3:40 am

      So (((who))) was it that told you for decades through the MIDDLE ground of media disinfo that black guys with African genetics were faster sprinters than White Europeans?

      “White Lightning” Matthew Boling Runs Incredible 10.13/44.75 (Relay) Double at Texas State Meet — Just How Good Is the HS Sprint Phenom?

      Frank Tufano – Why is Matthew Boling So Fast?

      That’s right. Modern African-Americans, although they often eat a diet just as bad or worse than most White European Americans, are genetically closer to their mostly raw-meat eating ancestors. Whites have a lot more generations of grain, veggies and garbage eating ancestors going back.

      Therefore it is more important for Whites to eat raw animals foods to activate those ancient genetics, which are still there, just not accessed because raw animal foods are not being eaten and your body wrongly thinks you are in a FASTING situation where enough optimal animal foods are not available and so it has to adjust to the expediencies of an inferior non-animal-foods heavy diet. Raw animal foods haven’t been eaten for many more generations in Europe and the majority-white-inhabited European colonies than in Africa.

      Therefore these genes are far more buried and dormant in Whites, since through the COUNTERFEIT prosperity of a grain heavy post-agriculture diet, the ‘limited hangout’ of inferior non-animal foods and the guilt-trips of Christianity, a desert religion completely foreign to Europe that was forced upon them, they have lived far more generations as ‘see-will-eyesed’ slaves with only indirect mental chains than the Africans may have lived, even with direct real chains, as uncivilized ones.

      Also, Frank, not being all that well-versed in matters of conspiracy theory, overlooked a fact I noticed right way: Matthew Boling attended (and still attends?) a JESUIT high school in Houston where their athletic department moniker is The Crusaders, therefore he’s very likely to be in the special care of people IN THE KNOW as far as these hidden and occulted matters are concerned.

      On the right are all the track and field records he has set since 2017:

  • 29-May-2019 at 3:22 am

    Did I say go eat Factory Farmed meat? No

    I said go eat GRASS-FED meat from animals raised in their natural environment. They are usually killed with a bullet to the skull from a barrel in a hole in front of their feed space while they’re’ feeding and have no idea their time is up. One second they’re alive, the next they’re dead; an instant death with no suffering involved. It’s not like Kosher or Halal killing where they let the animal bleed to death.

    Also, eating farmed veggies and grain kills more animals during the preparation and plowing of millions of acres at a time than raising grass-fed cattle or chickens ever does:

    Bobby’s Perspective – Ask A Farmer: Vegan or Carnivore – Who Kills More Animals?

    The Vegan Kill Cult

    Raw Carnivore Diet on a Budget

    Half a pound of raw grass-fed beef liver a day @ 5 dollars a pound = $2.50 a day

    Half a pound of rawgrass-fed Sirloin Steak a day @ 7 dollars a pound = 3.50 a day with one Stick of Grass-Fed butter = $2.50

    Half a bottle of Raw Kefir a day @ 8 dollars a bottle = 4 dollars a day

    6 raw Pastured Free Range eggs a day = $ 1.50

    Two 16 ounce bottles of Spring Water a day with Redmond or Himalayan Salt crystals added = 1 dollar

    One 16 ounce bottle of Fermented Tea (komboocha) = $2.50 a bottle store-bought – 50 cents a bottle if you make it yourself, but this is a concession to taste and not essential to the diet so store-bought and tasty is better.


    17.50 dollars a day and you’re good, even if everything is store-bought and retail

    • 29-May-2019 at 1:36 pm

      Had never thought about the killing differences between grass raised animals and ploughed fields but makes sense.

      I’ve been looking into raw meat diets since you brought it up and am trying to plan out a thirty day trial of it. Not sure If I might ease my way in my having the meat very rare for a week or so as I’m not used to it.

      Also, I’ve been thinking for a while if vegans shouldn’t eat honey than they shouldn’t eat organic vegetables as they tend to be fertilised with manure from farmed animals. Like they eat artificial vitamins from factory processes, the should only eat vegetables from land treated chemically.

      • 30-May-2019 at 3:41 pm

        Yes, vegans shouldn’t drink human breast-milk either or breast-feed their toddlers until they’re 7 years old, lol, if they want to be consistent.

          • 30-May-2019 at 5:18 pm

            Vegans shouldn’t give their babies milk…? Or be in the womb…? Is that even funny?

            It seems to me that you’ve overdone the meat and that your brains have regenerated … into muscle!

            • 30-May-2019 at 5:31 pm

              Perhaps not reductio ad ridiculum.

              But surely reductio ad absurdum?

              • 30-May-2019 at 6:55 pm

                Oh? There was an argument there?

                Perhaps you might express your argument like so: a person drinking milk from a cow is comparable to a baby drinking milk from its mother. Would that be the basis of your point?

                And that in existing, the baby is like a parasite and so on morally dubious grounds?

                If that’s it, your reductio is certainly absurdum, and I’m starting to think my comic muscle-brain response has a ring of truth!

            • 02-June-2019 at 6:30 am

              Well, vegans don’t consider human beings ‘animals,’ which means they breast-feed their toddlers to the age of 7, then feed them a toxic vegan diet and claim their child is ‘full vegan.’ Your child is only ‘vegan’ if you do not feed it any breast milk or cow’s milk, since both are animal products. To say that cow’s milk is an animal product but human milk is not, that’s ridiculous and inconsistent. If selling cow’s milk can end up being abusive to cows, then selling human milk would end up being abusive to pregnant women, if they decide to sell their breast-milk on the internet for money. You do know that breast-milk is sold on e-bay at really expensive prices like $100 a botlle, right?



              That could lead to women becoming pregnant just so they can make easy money by selling their breast milk to many more customers than just other mothers who have problems producing breast milk or can’t breast feed for whatever reason but still want their toddlers to have the healthiest food.

              Isn’t that potentially just as abusive as milking cows even when only children are given breast-milk not of their own mother but somebody else’s, never mind if adults start drinking it (which they are doing in larger numbers daily) because it’s a superfood?

              Yes it is. But because it’s not a major problem yet like factory-farmed animals, vegans make it an exception to their ‘no animal products’ rule.

              • 02-June-2019 at 6:01 pm

                Hello Neg,

                Fifth day of my carnivore diet experiment. Rare Fatty beef and lamb, oily fish, cheese, raw eggs, butter full fat milk and double cream. I’ve sourced a reasonable farm on mainland UK where they will ship me a regular package of cheaper cuts of a variety of grass-fed organic beef and lamb including bones and organ meat. Seems to be going well so far. I’m thinking after a month to try to gradually include more raw meat.

                I’ve been doing a lot of research. I am full of unquestioned premises and propaganda on nutrition. I’ve got some direct data on the various ways of eating I have lived with in my life. I’ve set my self 3 months to test the carnivore diet and then I have some more direct data.

                Also, I’ve been running through my brain the last few days some of the inconsistencies and ramifications of veganism. I’ve come up with the following.

                NB. I’m not trying to criticize anyone’s personal diet or particular moral choices. I just like to tease out the ramifications of ideas or how they interplay with others. I’ve got plenty of inconsistencies in my own.

                Errors in Grammar:

                My research here seems to indicate there are big problems with the way they have gathered their inputs. For example, research heavily funded or biased by interested parties. This also affects the rhetoric that is put out.

                Errors in Rhetoric: Positions which could only be correlations or vague hypotheses being presented as certain conclusions about the harm caused by saturated fats and cholesterol and the benefits of ‘5-a-day’ based on very limited information at the beginning of the 20th century. The food industry as an interest in perpetuating. E.g. Cholesterol being present on the walls of the cardiovascular system is now understood as being like fireman at a fire. They did not cause the fire but they have turned up to try to put it out.

                With the group-think nature of people, this rhetoric is fed back into the system as a paradigm at the point of grammar and biases new research, what papers are funded or published, or simply the hidden biases affecting the research. Scientists outside of the paradigm are mocked and harassed as being evil.

                The paradigm also infects the logic phase. What should be little more than a tentative assumption is being viewed as a self-evident premise.


                “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (MS, 3).

                The links that you shared confirmed some things that I had been thinking about. If it is cruel for us to kill animals to fulfil our energy requirements then all farming methods are cruel especially the growing of vegetables. The Jains would be the most consistent – not wearing shoes and taking great care when walking in case they kill a bug. But at the same time, they raise themselves up above the rest of the world like gods. How do they know that there isn’t a vibrant ecosystem in systems based upon the bugs squashed under human foot? Instead of living in nature they take themselves out of it.

                If all philosophical arguments come down to suicide then the endpoint of ethical veganism is suicide. But then they would be destroying the environment for their gut flora, although providing a life for worms. However, if he hangs around he can spread his message of death to others and I suppose to do more good.

                Say we accept the premise that: Life for any creature involves the use and suffering of another one. (I think this premise comes about only if we view it solely form the point of view of each actor involved, one exploiting another rather than the system as a whole).

                Then we add a second premise that: Suffering is bad and not-suffering is good,

                And a third, that as ethical beings we should act in a way to minimise the suffering we cause to others.

                then from a solipsistic point of view we should kill ourselves

                From a utilitarianism paradigm we should nuke (if nukes existed) the whole world and put an end to it all. Worldwide panicide (I may have just invented this term) as the only ethical step left to take in this world.

                Camus’s distillation of suicide as the sole philosophical problem could be written from a utilitarian point of view. To prevent the evils of continued death and suffering, the minor evil of panicide should be carried out to ensure the greater good of ending the cycle of death and suffering.

                “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Daibpdaibp says, “and that is panicide. Deciding whether or not Life is worth death is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that.” (Daibpdaibp, comment to Negentropic, 2019).

                Which brings me to some thoughts influenced by Schopenhauer, in whom I was greatly influenced by in my pre-religious twenties and to whom I am thinking to return as I think I made some fundamental mistakes in my understanding of his work.

                If we imagine ourselves to be on a train heading from London to Manchester, we can also view ourselves sat on a stationary train and the rest of the world rushing towards us.

                We can view ourselves as farming an animal for meat, or the animal having domesticated wild humans to provide for their food, shelter and safety from predators for the sake of them producing progeny. Or we can view it as a symbiotic relationship.

                If either side act with unnecessary cruelty perhaps that is the only moral dimension remaining. Perhaps cruelty could be defined something along the lines of: ‘To act against the symbiotic character of nature.’

                Veganism seems to view only one side of the equation. An anti-vegan would make a similar mistake if he viewed the animal or plant as simply here to serve us. In fact, the equation includes inputs.

                If we are individuated, phenomenal expressions of the Will, then no one is using or parasitising another, or even benefiting another as long as the whole equation is viewed and, from the point of Will rather than the individual actor. I don’t view this as a form of utilitarianism as it is not about the greatest good for the greatest number. The “good” in the utilitarian argument, for both the majority and the minority, is obtained from one side of the equation. There is no good, just actions in line with the Will and those in opposition to it.

                If there is a difference between man and beast, and as some have suggested, it is his taste for cruelty, then I would again apply my tentative definition of cruelty: To act against the symbiotic character of nature.

                Pasture raised, non-factory, organic beef seems to be a balanced equation. Both are farming each other or better are co-workers. The cattle’s manures replenishes the soil, on with bacteria and plants grow, maintaining the carbon cycle etc. The whole equation of Life flourishes.

                The other extreme would be cereal mono-cropping; almost the maximum cruelty as it destroys the symbiotic character of nature. The equation is unbalanced in the favour of panicidal man.

                Variation on a theme: If there is a difference between man and beast then perhaps it is man’s ability to go against Will. I’m not even sure if this is possible, so perhaps it is man’s desire to go against Will, which is fundamentally a love of barren death. Life is not worth death, even if death is the source of Life.

                There is no selfish gene, there is not altruism. Both are moralistic solutions to a problem which does not exist in nature.

                Not sure I’ve got everything right but it seems to follow.

                NB. I’m not suggesting that anyone thinks that is what we should do (actually it seems there are some vegans who do think like this) but I have been pondering about the logical inconsistencies of a particular world view. No doubt there is plenty in my own.

                One other thing neg, I’ve just started a blog:

                I’ve only got two posts so far: 01, 02. At the moment its basically just a couple of essays trying to work out how I got to where I am and the beliefs that I have loaded on to myself, even if my error has been to think that there was somewhere to go.

                If you have the chance I’d be grateful if you had a chance to have a read of them and let me know what your thoughts. I’m basically trying to work out what I actually think by putting it on ‘paper’, rather than what I think I think. If you don’t have the time please don’t feel any obligation but any thoughts or criticisms of my positions etc. would be gratefully received.

                That also goes for anyone else on the site.

  • 30-May-2019 at 3:35 pm


    You might find this useful

    16 Minute Hotel HIIT Workout | Low Impact | No Noise | The Body Coach

    The principle to follow for exercise if you don’t want to get hurt is: balance is leveraged movement. If you train balance, you will also train all the leveraged movements that arise out of that balance. And ultimately you realize that balance is efficient movement itself. I have had no injuries following this principle religiously before all else in 5 years except one slightly pulled calf-muscle that healed in a week. No joint pain, none of that nonsense.

    You would think that someone over 50 should get injured a lot more often but no, it’s all bullshit, there is no deterioration after the age of 50 if you 1) Eat a raw carnivore diet from the best sources possible – 2) Do HIIT workouts where you can operate well at very high intensity for short periods of time rather than direct strength training or endurance training – This activates human growth hormone. For guys who don’t want to do sprints, you can do it with just that 16 minute hotel workout, no need to go running up hills. As long as HGH is activated you’re good for at least 24 hours. Your body thinks you have to hunt for your food and builds you the muscles you need to go chase your prey. 3) Follow the principle of balance as the foundation of all efficient movement. Study all learned combination movements that you make every single day in its basic rudiments to make sure you are operating from a foundation of balance for leveraged and easiest, most efficient movement. I started by completely changing the way I walk and took it from there.

    And last but not least, use edible cannabis indica and cbd to relax your muscles and improve your concentration to laser-like accuracy 2 hours before every workout.

  • 30-May-2019 at 8:12 pm

    Hello Al. I guess we reached the comment thread limit as I couldn’t reply but I want to.

    Perhaps you might express your argument like so: a person drinking milk from a cow is comparable to a baby drinking milk from its mother. Would that be the basis of your point?
    And that in existing, the baby is like a parasite and so on morally dubious grounds?

    I kinda think that the vegan argument, although perhaps only in its stronger forms does lead there. I might be strawmanning a bit as it’s in its stronger forms but…

    If we don’t need to eat meat because we can synthetize food supplements and fertilizers for soil, then once we can synthetize breast milk and then grow babies artificially then there is no need to enslave women in child rearing for the benefit of the child. It would be cruel to continue to subject women to the suffering involved. A la brave new world.

    Not what I’d like to see but I think the same argument could apply. We farm women to provide more workers, pay social security etc. If we can grow the next slaves why not do it more humanely!

    • 30-May-2019 at 8:58 pm


      Well, the points you make about Brave New World, synthesizing supplements and slaves etc that you use to describe the ‘vegan’ argument – which I am not familiar with btw – are far from my own position. I was making something like a personal, morality-based argument, in the here and now. So if your ‘vegan’ argument points were directed at me, which I assumed was the case given the earlier discussion – I agree that you were strawmanning.

    • 02-June-2019 at 6:42 am

      Dr. Shawn Baker ordering 16 beef patties only at In-N-Out Burger lol

      Eats nothing but steaks and red meat with salt and water. That’s his entire diet.

      He’s over 50 years old and has broken almost every lifting record for the over-50 age-group. Here he is dead-lifting 400 pounds 18 times,

      try doing that even once on an omnivore diet and see if your arms don’t break off while you give yourself a hernia! lol

      Try doing that even once on a vegetarian or vegan diet and get ready for injuries that never heal.

      Shawn Baker isn’t even Raw carnivore. Here he is interviewing Sv3rige/Goatis about raw carnivore

  • 02-June-2019 at 1:46 pm

    I think nutritional deficiencies are an irrational fear.

    Does anybody here say “grace”?

    Do you say grace before each meal? …or before each bite? Or WHILE chewing each bite?

    What about the effect of our thinking upon our diet & health results?

    If I decide to be “healthy” and I start preparing all my own meals with only “healthy” ingredients, and while preparing those meals Im thinking over and over to myself…”these ingredients are healthy, these ingredients are healthy”….

    …and while im chewing each bite of that “healthy” food im very conscious of how god damn healthy it is for me…does that “healthy food” inner dialogue have an effect on your health?

    Do we live on a placebo planet?

    Is Neg trolling?

    • 02-June-2019 at 8:02 pm

      Yep – absolutely agree. I think how we think about food, blessing it, etc – is a great way to go. I need to do more of this! Thanks for the reminder 🙂

  • 02-June-2019 at 8:22 pm

    Re daibpdaibp’s comment above. I’ll happily respond to this, as it helps clear my own thinking. My hot take is that the position you ascribe to vegans is all a bit death focused.

    Perhaps the key is your point about Camus suicide thing. I don’t get it. What does all that mean to you?

    Btw, as a sort of aside, I’m not sure on the pronunciation of your name – daibpdaibp. In my head I’m pronouncing it dai-b-p, as if ‘b’ and ‘p’ are initials, and where Dai is like the Welsh name, pronounced ‘die’..

    • 02-June-2019 at 10:43 pm

      In my head I’m pronouncing it dai-b-p, as if ‘b’ and ‘p’ are initials, and where Dai is like the Welsh name, pronounced ‘die’..

      You’re exactly right with the pronunciation. My name is David but my grandfather was from Wales so a lot of my family call me Dai. I keep thinking I should shorten my public name to Daibp to simplify but…procrastination and inertia. David is equally fine. I have a dislike of being called Dave so if I’m being an annoying so and so it’s a good way to trigger me!

      My hot take is that the position you ascribe to vegans is all a bit death focused.

      I don’t think that the average vegan is probably personally, intentionally or actually death focused in how they understand their veganism. I imagine that for most of them their intentions are, at least they believe their intentions to be, noble.

      My intention with my rather long-winded comment was more to see how their logic plays out. If there are some logical inconsistencies whereby, what is intended to be an ideology/practice in order to reduce the amount of death and suffering in the world, actually has some unintended logical and practical outcomes.

      e.g. what does mean if the practical outcome is that the growing of mono-crop cereals and vegetables is causing more death and suffering than pasture-raised beef and dairy. They may not be death focused but their ideology leads to a far greater amount of death.

      Is the error in the grammar – are they taking as premises two contradictory statements?…

      1.That we are fundamentally different from animals, that we have free will and can act morally so we don’t have the excuse to follow some aspects of animal nature?
      2 That our nature is fundamentally the same as animals and thus animals have the same rights as humans e.g.not to be killed for food.

      I think that for veganism (I’m trying to distinguish between the ism and the everyday vegan as my own life habits are far from consistent nor admirable.) I think that for veganism these two opposing premises are mixed, in regards to human nature, animal nature, and their relationship.

      This seems to be one inconsistency which could be the source of the strange outcomes of their argument.

      It seems to me that to say that rape or murder is wrong for humans, (in fact, it seems strange to argue that it exists in the animal kingdom), then we are implicitly stating that although we may share some aspects of animal nature, there is something extra there. From this is would not follow that animals could have the same ‘rights’ about not being killed, (I’m a little bit sceptical about human rights but haven’t thought it all through yet.)

      I guess this is actually in the vegan argument, but they move this barrier between the plant and animal kingdoms. But I would suggest that to do this, animals would have to be subject to the same moral constraints that we are. I don’t think it is just a matter of that, say a lion, has to eat animals. If they move the line of ‘rights’ to below the animal kingdom then the implicit change that we are saying about their nature implies that we should charge a bull for rape if he does not get permission from the heifer, which implies that the heifer could give consent. The descent into absurdity reveals the contradictions in their premises.

      I don’t think that animals not having rights means that it is fine to be cruel to them. The opposite in fact. That’s why I was trying to come up with a non-moralistic definition of cruelty in my previous post.

      Next stage

      Here is a very short ( <3mins) video of ant – caterpillar symbiosis.

      This seems to me to be a corollary of beef farming. It could also be used to justify indoor beef farming but I think that the symbiosis starts to break down, e.g.the harm that grain feeding does to both cattle and humans. Again I am classifying humans (at least some) as having something extra which means they are capable of this cruelty. If an NPC was running a grain-raised factory farm then they might be blameless but probably best to avoid eating the meat.

      Perhaps the key is your point about Camus suicide thing. I don’t get it. What does all that mean to you?

      My point about the Camus things was

      One’s position on if one should commit suicide or not, is (literally) the ultimate rhetorical test on our positions. It’s not just eating beef that involves killing animals or harms other life. Everything we do does it. If we view everything one-sidedly e.g. is cruel for humans to raise cattle and then kill them for beef or

      The ants are exploiting the plant and the caterpillar that they farm.
      Lions are exploiting wildebeest

      then we do not acknowledge the benefits that the cows get from protection from predators, no starvation risk from the caprice of the weather and food supply. Lions cull the wildebeest population preventing starvation. etc..

      Then we can follow the one-sided argument through to viewing suicide as the only way to ensure that we don’t harm other life. That we are a parasite, (not that we can’t turn our symbiosis into parasitism.)

      That which may look immoral such as killing a cow for beef actually is part of an overall symbiotic system which has not been included in the grammar.

      I often think about the rainforest canopy. All those trees having to grow higher and higher to get sunlight, all wasting energy in competition (if only government regulators could step in!) But the result is a beautiful canopy which provides a rainforest ecosystem which would not be there otherwise. I imagine there will be other plants, insects and such in this ecosystem which would help the trees e.g Some trees require other plants to be around as the decay of those plants, apparently, maintains a certain pH of the soil. (btw I also don’t believe in evolution)

      As another example, although I’m sceptical of the official global warming scandal and of the official history of fossil fuels, say they are in fact from dead trees and such millions of years ago, in a time of high CO2 and global temperature. Humans burning them could be part of an extremely long-term climate cycle of which we know nothing about (although I’m sceptical of history!) Our attempts to limit fossil fuel burning could be harmful to the global ecosystem.

      So, in both practice (vegetable monocropping) and theory (the only way to avoid the evil of harming others is our own death), then veganistic, one-side argument and mixed premises do seem to lead to death, hence my criticisms were focused on it.

      I introduced my own utilitarian variation on Camus…

      There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Daibpdaibp says, “and that is panicide. Deciding whether or not Life is worth death is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that.” (Daibpdaibp, comment to Negentropic, 2019).

      because it feels like the next logical outcome of the following premises. I.e. Camus applied by a utilitarian like Bentham.

      Causing death and suffering to another when it could be avoided is evil.
      Life for any creature is founded and relies upon the death and suffering of others.
      Humans are beings which have the ability to act morally.
      We should act in a way to avoid or a least minimise the suffering and death that we cause to others.
      However, killing ourselves is also wrong as it involves the death of a creature and suffering to others.
      (Utilitarianism) The greatest good for the greatest number in cases where there are incommensurable goods or evils.
      The greatest good would be moral actions which lead to the least amount of death and suffering.
      Our own suicide would reduce the overall amount of death and suffering in the world.
      Panicide would prevent all future death and suffering of creatures.
      11.. The greatest good for the greatest number is to destroy life on earth ensuring that there will be no more death and suffering in the future.

      That the outcome is on the absurd indicates to me that there is a problem in viewing life negatively, building an ideology purely on it is wrong to kill an animal to eat it. The overall symbiotic nature of the world is a grammar so vast that narrowing it down so one-sidedly leads to absurdity even when the logic is applied correctly.

      Which is one of the reasons why for me, grammar, logic and rhetoric requires a sceptical foundation which, outside of JLBs work, I don’t find in other people who teach/suggest it? Scepticism to our grammar and hence our rhetoric (positive rhetoric at least).

      Returning to one of your earlier points about intuition. I agree that there is an intuition about killing a cow to eat it when we could eat vegetables etc. However, once we plug this into Input, Loic, Output, what is the result that we get. If I am right in my criticism (and I could be well off), then the new information that we have can be plugged back into the beginning.

      Sorry I’ve gone on so long again.

      p.s. Purely anecdotally, but having been looking into proponents of veganism and carnivorism, in general, the latter look far healthy and seem considerably more sane and rational. (Not saying the average vegan is insane.) Not that it proves anything, but….perhaps it is an anecdotal indicator of fitness with nature.

      Hence I’m giving the carnivore diet a trial.

      • 06-June-2019 at 2:42 am

        So, Dave.. 😉 only joking.

        Dai, I know I said I would respond. A few days on and I haven’t found the time. Also, as I’m on my phone primarily at present, drafting responses takes longer.

        Unfairly, I will pick out only a couple of points to respond to, and then I’ll point you to a show that I think, on this issue, hits the right note.

        Firstly, I do not advocate mono-culture farming. I do advocate permaculture, and hilly on this site is an expert. This would be what I would do, if I get the opportunity.

        Secondly, growing meat for food is more intensive that just growing food directly. You need to grow more (monoculture) crops to provide food from meat. So meat eaters make this problem worse.

        Re an alternative source for my position, I want to point you to Mark Passio’s show on the problems with carnism, as he calls it. He address the vegan agenda and all that, and also explains in moral terms why it is right to do it anyway. You can see/hear this show, and the follow up show here:
        Mark Passio, #207

        Mark Passio is definitely an acquired taste, and I don’t agree with everything he holds to (e.g. he’s big on Tesla, history, etc), but I find his thinking on subjective moral issues and natural law very good. I’d definitely be interested to hear what you make of it. He does bludgeon his points a bit though, and 3 hours might be too long for some. He is a believer in the Trivium method though.

        Finally, as he says, its probably not a good idea to switch to a vegan (or other) diet overnight, and rather it should be a gradual, considered, transition. Worth bearing in mind!

        • 11-June-2019 at 4:45 am

          Hello Al, sorry for taking so long to reply.

          I’ve listened to the podcast and have copied out the actual arguements for his case minus the filler. Where I am quoting directly I have used inverted commas. Other points I have summarised his point.

          Mark Passio (MP): What we take into our body as fuel is a matter of the “dynamics of morality” and he is “extremely knowlegable on that”

          MP: “There is a truth regarding what humans should or should not eat. What we choose to fuel our bodies has everything to do with morality under natural law.”

          MP: “Natural Law is: A set of univeral, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviours of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behaviour.”

          MP “The understanding of Natural Law is centred upon bringing our own Conscience into allignment with Objective Morality. This means definitively knowing which behaviours are rights because they do not cause harm to other sentient beings, and which behaviours are wrongs because they do cause harm to other sentient beings.”

          MP: Sentient = self-aware

          MP: “There is one question we must ask when deciding on what to eat: Did we harm another sentient being in order to procure what we are taking into our body as fuel. The only question that really one should as when it comes to determining the morality of the human diet.”

          MP: Nature intended a plant-based diet.

          MP: “Natural Law has nothing to do with the following:”
          “The so-called “Law of the jungle, The so-called Natural Order,
          “Any aspect of behaviour in the entire Animal Kingdom for any creature with less cognitive development and capabilities than a human being.”

          MP: “Consequential laws of behaviour only apply to animals as only humans can understand right and wrong behaviour.”

          MP: “Natural law has nothing to do with animal behaviour.” Only humans due to the complexities of the brain.

          MP: Fallacious argument about harm to plants because of the complexification of life.

          MP Question; “Do the lives of other sentient beings belong to us to take.”
          Animals are sentient beings, plants are not.
          “No they do not!”

          I’m going to add another comment so as to …er…comment on this argument,

          • 11-June-2019 at 6:14 am

            Basically he is offering a moral argument for what we eat. His position seems to be very religious despite his protests against religion.

            His morality seems to be Kantian:

            According to Kant, sentient beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in an imperative, or ultimate commandment of reason, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition declaring a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.

            and His natural Law is a categorical imperative:

            A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

            Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

            Where he differs is that he is giving the natural law a metaphysical character similar to God, or God’s law:
            “Natural Law is: A set of universal, inherent, objective, non-man-made, eternal and immutable conditions which govern the consequences of behaviours of beings with the capacity for understanding the difference between harmful and non-harmful behaviour.”

            Instead of simply being a moral imperative that he has willed as he would wish it applicable for all, He is asserting, like Moses on the mountain, that this is an eternal law based on reason. (Who says reason has an eternal Platonic reality?)

            My first point would be: Sez who? I’m starting to get the feeling that I am being presented with slave morality. Someone once likened the relationship between Kant’s rationalistic moral law and Christianity as: I like Kant to a man at a masked ball, where he spends the night dancing with a mysterious masked lady. At the end of the night, she removes her mask and the gentleman discover that it is his wife.

            Where does this eternal, immutable, non-man made law come from? If it does not proceed from God then I guess it is from pure reason but this reminds me of the Nietzschean slave morality whereby the slaves create morality in order to make themselves better than the masters. Instead of being simply one morality amongst others they imbue it with godlike status in order to make themselves better than everyone else.

            Onw may personally like this moral imperative, one may adapt it for oneself and then, the rest of his argument may follow, but please tell me why the morality that you favour has an eternal and immutable character? How did you find it out. Did you reason it? But reason is of this world and not of eternity.

            What if I stated that the immutable natural law was that the higher forms of being have the right to use the lower forms fo being in order for life to flourish? We may not like it but even if it is not an eternal law, what if it is the temporal law of life?

            If I simply reject his natural law then the rest of his argument falls away. As much as he says that the natural law he presents is not man-made, it seems awfully wordy and has enough caveats for me to suspect it is man-made and is a post-hoc moral justification for the life of a slave.

            The next stage of his argument is that our only rights are those which “do not cause harm to other sentient beings.” (Shit can we don anything then, in the reality of how the world works?)

            Basically, his argument is:

            There is a natural law that we must follow in order to avoid undesirable consequences.
            We have rights which do not cause harm to other sentient beings.”
            Some behaviours are wrongs because they do cause harm to other sentient beings.
            Animals are sentient beings and so we may not cause them harm.
            Using animals for fuel cause them harm.
            We may not use animals for fuel.
            Plants are not sentient beings so we may cause them harm
            We may use plants for fuel.

            Or more succinctly:

            1, There is a natural law which means that if we harm sentient beings there will be consequences.
            2, Animals are sentient beings
            3. Eating animals causing them harm.
            3. We cannot eat animals.

            His conclusions follow his premises but that does not mean that we cannot eat animals. Only if we accept his metaphysics and some of his definitions.

            Point 1. His definition of natural law does not mean that we have to follow the law, just that there are consequences if we don’t.

            Kant himself proved that there is, by definition no logical reason nor possible evidence for metaphysical entities. His natural law is a metaphysic. Its existence is a matter of faith. He would say the consequences are still real but it does not mean that we are morally obliged to follow it. Just that there will be consequences.

            Point 2. We cannot harm sentient beings in order to get fuel.

            His argument takes no account of reality. The common argument that we could feed the people using plants only relies upon farming. Whether one likes monocropping or not, any agricultural production of plants involves harm to sentient beings as collateral damage. In reality, it is inevitable. If this natural law is immutable etc. then one can only eat plants that involved no harm to other sentient beings. Reality is opposed to natural law!

            Animals are harmed in the growing of plants. Animals are sentient beings.
            MP: “There is one question we must ask when deciding on what to eat: Did we harm another sentient being in order to procure what we are taking into our body as fuel. The only question that really one should as when it comes to determining the morality of the human diet.”

            Unless you are eating wild berries, then you harmed another sentient being inorder to procure what you are taking into your body as fuel. He states that “did we harm another sentient being.” Not did you try to limit it, but was one harmed.

            If this happens with the growing of plants, and one wants to be the most moral person possible, then if it turns out that killing and eating animals causes less aggregate harm to animals then one should only eat animals.

            This is why it is an anti-life philosophy, despite all of his satanic carnism and etheric field bluster. Life for one being is built upon the harm and suffering of others. It is inevitable. This “Natural Law” is not a metaphysic but a reality. One can try to limit it (by eating more meat) but to make it an eternal and immutable law that you can have no food nor carry out any action that causes harm to another sentient being is to deny life and to worship death.

            Do you drive a car? No doubt a sentient being was harmed along the way. This could go on forever. The law is eternal and immutable. You must bring your conscience into allignment with it.

            I’m not saying that it is not admirable to desire to limit the unnecessary harm one causes to other sentient beings. Perhaps one could make that a premise. But when we make it an eternal and immutable law applicable to everyone but the decree of metaphysics, through the prophet Mark Passio, then the outcome is an anti-Life philosophy.

            And if one did change the premise or categorical imperative to wanting to only “limit the harm caused to other sentient beings” then one should only eat pasture reared beef, dairy, free range eggs etc.

            Point 3. He claims that it is fallacious to include the harm to plants due to the complexities of life and that they are not sentient. However, there was a time when rationalists like Descartes knew that animals were automata. Now we know different. If there comes a time where we discover that plants are in fact sentient, then we could no longer eat them. Natural law is eternal and immutable. The outcome of his application of an eternal, never changing law is dependent upon our mutable, conditional knowledge.

            Thus despite having his natural law, his conclusions about what we can eat are still conditional and not absolute.

            Point 4. His (for me) arbitrary natural law construction includes “sentient beings.” I get why as it ensures his desired outcome but it seems to be a bit strange that “natural law” has nothing to do with “the natural order”. I know he states that it doesn’t but it seems like he has to make this statement to avoid what he knows would be the outcome. Go figure.

            Point 5. MP Question; “Do the lives of other sentient beings belong to us to take.”
            Animals are sentient beings, plants are not.
            “No, they do not!”

            My next criticism is on a hypothetical. If I am starving and the only food I have available is meat. Can I eat it? According to MP, the answer is “no”, because the life was not mine to take. Even if it was already dead, I have to ask myself the question, was another sentient being harmed in order to procure the source of energy? As his law is eternal and immutable, then if the answer is yes, another sentient being was harmed, then I must starve to death. I must bring my conscience into alignment with the LAW.

            This may seem absurd but this is because the moral imperative that he has framed and imbued with timelessness and immutability leads to absurdity. Reason can not posit and describe metaphysical entities.

            Aside: I have no moral imperative about eating meat or not eating meat. My own research seems to suggest that we are not designed to eat only plants but I’m open about it. For me it is primarily a matter of practicality and reality. I do however spend extra and I buy pasture raised only beef, free range eggs etc (I’m a great person!!!), but even this is somewhat practical as I think it is likely to be better for me and for the animal. Symbiosis!

            He has made a matter of nature which could include a temporal moral arguement, into a metaphysical moral argument.

            Point 6. Hypotheticial. What if a lion was not only sentient but became aware of harmful and non-harmful behaviour. Must the lion starve to death despite his body not being adapted to a plant-based life? THE LAW IS ETERNAL AND IMMUTABLE.

            You may not procure food or indeed take any action that leads to or has involved the harm of another sentient being. The lion must bring his newly acquire conscience into line!

            I assume MP would say that he is not a fanatic about applying the law. But the law is not Mark Passio-made. Who gives him the right to apply is according to practicalities and circumstance?

            Life and nature involve the harm of other sentient beings. Life and nature stand in opposition to Natural LAW!

              • 11-June-2019 at 4:54 pm

                I absolutely think it’s possible that plants respond to stimuli and are alive in ways we don’t recognize. They are certainly living creatures. I’m convinced that they have defence mechanisms too.

                Looking up the word ‘sentience’, I see:
                1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
                2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

                It seems clear to me that they are not conscious in the way that animals are – they are not at the same level or class of life. Do you genuinely think they are sentient, or are you attempting to stretch the definition of sentience/consciousness in order to support an unintuitive point? Do we take the life a spinach plant? If you were driving down a road and a sheep was in the way, would you plough through the sheep for fear of harming the shrubs?

                For me, as a living, conscious, moral, creature I have a right to live, and well if possible! I don’t intuit that I have the right to kill other creatures. I try to behave neutrally and to do the least harm. Also, I’m not that interested in an abstract, absolutist, theoretical arguments but in my practical, daily experience. “Chop wood, carry water”..

              • 11-June-2019 at 11:56 pm

                I honestly don’t know if plants are sentient or not. Some of the research noted in the above article could lead one to believe that they are sentient, even as described in the definition of sentience that you posted.
                Again, I don’t know, and am not making any claims about it.
                I’d argue that none of us know… and it may be that we adopt and hold fast to the perspective that best fits the worldview we are most comfortable with.

                I was noting that Passio seems certain, and I wonder why he feels so certain about something we cannot know.
                Would he be interested in learning that plants were more sentient than he previously believed? Or would he ignore that evidence if it was provided to him?
                I don’t know the man, obviously, but he seems extremely invested in his current perspective, with little to no room for applying new information or knowledge.

              • 12-June-2019 at 3:53 am

                Replying here, as I cannot reply to your later comment.

                I don’t know that much about plant sentience.. It is an interesting enough area for sure, but I don’t think its at all useful to consider here. And frankly, we’re getting into impractical, navel-gazing philosophical bs, imo.

                Perhaps, I can try one last time with an example. You’re walking along the street, and pass an old lady, carrying a plant in a pot and walking here dog. 2 seconds after you pass her, you hear a car screetch, the lady shout, the dog yelp and the plant’s pot crack. You turn and see all the have been run over by a car. Who do you help first? And second?

                Does that help?

            • 12-June-2019 at 4:36 am

              Hi Dai – that’s quite a long response. Also, not sure how but I missed this earlier – this must be the follow up you had mentioned. I’m mainly on my phone at the mo, so apologies for not responding to this. Though I don’t think that my response is going to be that different.

              I don’t know that Passio holds to what Kant says, though it could be! I won’t respond to a Critique of Kant, on behalf of Passio though.

              On natural law… Would you say that the effect we commonly describe as gravity is a law? Does whether we recognise it as such have any bearing, as to whether the law really exists? If I say I don’t believe it, will it still bring me back to earth when I jump? So you don’t hold that natural law is real. Fine.

              The law, simply put, is not causing harm to others is a moral law. This coheres with what I think and feel. Do I go and punch someone because I feel like punching something? No! If I did would that be ok, even if I had no reason to hurt that person? No again! I honestly don’t think this stuff is complex, but I do agree it is possible for philosophers to ant-fuck edge cases that do not help us in our lives or understanding.

              The real issue in my opinion is that we have been educated out of our natural intuition and understanding of this natural and innate way of being (which I think children have, eg towards animals) and do not even give it a second thought when we buy sausages, meat etc. Can you go and kill an animal yourself? How do you feel doing that? Joy, indifference or sadness/regret?

              If you do feel something, how do you explain that feeling? Is it something God put there? Is it eternal? Personally, I do think its something like that and I’m pretty MP would say the same.

              You said:
              1, There is a natural law which means that if we harm sentient beings there will be consequences.
              2, Animals are sentient beings
              3. Eating animals causing them harm.
              3. We cannot eat animals.

              Re – ‘We cannot eat animals.’ – he doesn’t say that. He says you can. (This also goes for Point 2.) He does say that there is a karmic consequence in doing so. You might argue over what such a karmic consequence might be.

              Re your point over collateral damage in making food and cars. So what? You didn’t intend to inflict hurt, you were just living your life, you did nothing wrong. There was no mal-intent there.

              I don’t get what you’re on about at all about it being anti-life. Up is down, black is white, right? I’m saying ‘not killing animals is morally correct and that we shouldn’t do it’, and you’re saying that is anti-life!! You have to admit, that by most accounts what you’re saying is a bit mad.

              To even express this opinion, I think you’re taking a pretty weird position, where all types and classes of life are one type of thing – just blocks of life. Then you can do a count and say something like – ‘you killed 2000 spinach plants and I killed one cow – you’re a mega-murderer!’ Are you also ok with eating people?

              You also say: ‘My next criticism is on a hypothetical. If I am starving and the only food I have available is meat. Can I eat it? According to MP, the answer is “no”’
              Well, actually, he expresses the exact opposite opinion, that if you have no other options, you should eat meat.

              Anyway, I’ll leave it at that – I hope I’ve addressed your main points.

              • 12-June-2019 at 10:03 am


                I hesitate to respond to your last comment to me, because I sense that you are irritated and that was not my intention.
                I’ll just respond quickly to make clear a couple of points, then I’ll be done. 🙂

                I don’t know that much about plant sentience.. It is an interesting enough area for sure, but I don’t think its at all useful to consider here. And frankly, we’re getting into impractical, navel-gazing philosophical bs, imo

                Fair enough.
                Just to clarify, I wasn’t trying to derail the conversation, or send it into “navel-gazing philosophical bs”, at all. As I stated in earlier comments, I don’t have answers to any of this, and I have spent many, many hours thinking about the implications of what I eat, both in how it effects my body/health, and if there is a “moral” aspect to diet.

                When I bring up questions about plant sentience, it isn’t to “win” an argument, or to discredit your beliefs… it’s because I genuinely wonder about these things and the possible implications.

                I now understand your opinion on that topic and understand why you wouldn’t feel inclined to consider it significant. That’s totally cool, and I won’t bother you by mentioning it again.

                Perhaps, I can try one last time with an example.

                No need to try multiple times to express an idea or point to me, especially if I’m not asking for clarification. You can simply assume I “get it”, or that I’m a lost cause. The last thing I want is for you or anyone to feel exasperated and to feel obliged to repeat or restate points, particulary if it is frustrating to said person.

                Does that help?

                Most definitely!
                In fact every word you’ve written on this thread has “helped”. (some in ways that you likely didn’t intend)
                I’m always intrigued to hear people’s perspective on their diets (when they take the topic seriously), and the reasons they have formulated them. It helps me to learn more about diet… and people. 🙂

          • 11-June-2019 at 8:00 am

            I’m not sure if you want me to wait for your next comment, but I think you’ve provided a very fair summary of what Mark Passio says. Thank you for even taking the time to follow up on this.

            So, as you say, MP bases his argument on natural law, where the higher, more moral, components only apply to men and women. Even so, animals are capable of acting kindly to others – as in the example video he shows, where a dog is splashing water on fish that have been caught and are dying out of water.

            Perhaps the most revealing point he makes relates to the turn of phrase ‘taking a life’. It’s been a while since I listened to it, but – paraphrasing – I think he asks ‘do we have the right to take another creature’s life?’ to which he replies that ‘we don’t have the right to take anything, as the use of the word “taking” itself shows that it doesn’t belong to us, and that the life belongs to the creature’. Obv. a farmer, in our system, believes he owns the cattle and can do what he wants, but he is making a moral (not legal) point. He holds that sentient creatures own their lives, and that taking a life is an immoral act.

            I’m saying that this argument is fair and that we intuitively know we don’t have the right to take another creature’s life because we prefer the taste to veg/fruit. (An emergency survival situation is different.) There is no reason to think that animals don’t feel and emote as we do, even if they do lack the ability to convey this to us. Eating meat then, even if you don’t kill it personally, is the cause of lots of immoral actions.

            • 11-June-2019 at 10:16 pm

              Perhaps the most revealing point he makes relates to the turn of phrase ‘taking a life’. It’s been a while since I listened to it, but – paraphrasing – I think he asks ‘do we have the right to take another creature’s life?’ to which he replies that ‘we don’t have the right to take anything, as the use of the word “taking” itself shows that it doesn’t belong to us, and that the life belongs to the creature’.

              The trouble I have is that if we are assigning property rights to animals, then have the worms homesteaded the soil? Do rabbits have property rights and can we therefore not grow where there are rabbits? Do we have the right to use their property to grow our own food.

              Can I ‘take’ water from a fish’s brook to quench my thirst?

              If someone is more comfortable ethically eating mainly or all plants no problem. And vice versa.

              But the attempt to apply property rights and metaphysical natural law doesn’t work.

              Does a spider have squatters rights in my house and must I get a court order to evict him?

              It seems to me that as a higher species we simply create whatever justification we need to sleep easily.

              Animals have property rights over their life but not over the land where want our vegetable patch

              • 11-June-2019 at 11:27 pm

                Does a spider have squatters rights in my house and must I get a court order to evict him?

                Ha 🙂 I don’t think spiders have legal representation in our system. If this really is an issue for you, might I recommend a glass and a piece of paper?

                I am certainly past thinking that our legal systems have anything to do with supporting rights or moral behavior. The only thing they do afaik is use the guise of morality to enforce the legal rights of the powerful. The legal system is part of the problem – I don’t look there for answers.

                If I were using land, and bunnies were taking my vegetables, I think I might consider putting up a fence. I don’t think I need to eat them – raw or otherwise 🙂

                Typically, I think as a higher species, if we even consider this issue from a moral pov, we can end up using our intelligence to take us down intellectual cul de sacs so we avoid considering the moral (and obvious) implications of our preferences, so we can sleep easily.

  • 10-June-2019 at 3:48 am

    Carnivore Diet on a Budget for the Squeamish:

    half a pound of Raw Wild Caught Salmon a day (substitute wild-caught/previously frozen when Salmon is not in season and since it should be half-price then eat a pound a day) – Make sure it’s Fresh and was brought in that day. Eat it the same day you take it home or no later than 48 hours for the best taste. After that, you can still eat it, but it will be smelly and harder on the palate though maybe even more nutritious due to extra bacteria. @ 19 dollars a pound = $9.50 a day

    Cut it up into little bite size pieces. Keep the skin on. You can peel the skin off from one end to the rest but then you might peel off most of the fat under the skin where all the vitamins are, plus the skin itself has lots of nutrients. Also, of course, using your teeth and jaw muscles to mew or chew your food properly in a closed and sealed mouth before you swallow, will fix your jawline and facial structure into natural state. Chew on all sides to get even facial muscle development.

    Add good quality organic lemon juice to taste and start chewing. Eating without the skin, just the soft Salmon flesh with lemon is very easy. Chewing the skin and fat takes a bit more deconditioning and is easiest to do when the fish is fresh.

    1 can of smoked, Cod Liver a day = 4 dollars – might be able to get it cheaper for sure but I’m going by the amazon bulk price for a brand that I’ve tried.

    This is cooked but is delicious and very easy to eat. Two cans a week will give you all the vitamins you need. One a day will give you far more energy. This is far more expensive than Raw grass fed beef liver. A can versus a whole pound for 5 bucks or only a dollar or so more? Raw always wins, but if you can’t eat it raw, this is the next best option rather than not eating any liver at all.

    Half a bottle of Raw Kefir a day @ 8 dollars a bottle = 4 dollars a day –

    3 bottles of mountain spring water a day with plenty of Redmond or Himalayan salt crystals added. Too much water is unnecessary. The rule is: as soon as you cut even one wet fart, it’s time to stop all liquids. Your farts should always be dry as the desert wind. It’s not a coincidence that when you have perfect digestion, you also feel your best. @ 1 dollar or less in 24 packs

    2 bottles of your favorite flavor of fermented tea a day (komboocha) – This is for the sweet tooth conditioning that is very hard to give up – Try to get a brand that has no cane sugar – 5 dollars

    9.50 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 5 = 23.50 and you’re good to go – get ready to feel 20 years younger in about 6 months if you are disciplined enough to stick to it. After that, the shape of your body will start to adjust to the feeling inside.

    So, for few dollars more premium, you can eat the raw carnivore diet for the squeamish above and be in perfect health. You will not be hungry at all and will have to remind yourself to eat every day to have even more energy than you will already have. Your digestion will be perfect as long as you don’t just eat the canned liver but also the raw wild caught salmon and raw kefir.

    So, yeah, there is no excuse for not being in good physical health for anyone who can eat Sashimi or Sushi. If you can eat raw (mostly farmed) super-expensive (why is it 50 dollars a pound and still farmed) Sushi and Sashimi, then you can certainly eat fresh Wild Caught Salmon with lemon.

    By the way, screw ‘sushi grade,’ period, it’s all a scam. Never eat anything but wild caught fresh fish in any sushi joint. If they don’t have wild caught Sashimi, then they don’t deserve your patronage. I’ve had sushi chefs take offense when I tell them I only want a wild caught fish sashimi sampler and nothing else. They take offense because they want to go on feeding you Farm-raised garbage for outrageous amounts of money. They have a good scam going. Then they charge you a premium, of course, for the Wild Caught too, so you’re getting screwed either way, but at least with the Wild Caught fish, your eating out brought you back some good nutrition and kept you on your healthiest diet.

  • 11-June-2019 at 6:49 pm

    Just want to thank Negentropic, daipbdaipb, Al, and BMSeattle for the fascinating discussion here.

    For what its worth, this is one of those things I don’t personally have any internally consistent answers for.

    I’ve done the vegetarian thing for a decent period (18 months?), I’ve done the meat-heavy thing, at the moment I’m eating heaps of meat and vegetables and god knows what crap they put in the food here.

    Do plants and vegetables and so forth feel pain? I’d be very surprised if they did not. Should I care? That’s a more difficult question to answer.

    Is it eating meat healthy? The healthiest couple I’ve ever met personally are effectively ‘vegans’ although they don’t identify as such. One of them is a Member of this very website. I’ll try to post a video of his garden within the next week.

    But then again, I’ve met some very (apparently) healthy meat-eaters.

    Nate might well be right about the placebo element of our food. I really ought to get into the habit of saying grace (not that I will call it that, eeew, saying grace is for those crazy christians amirite?)

    • 13-June-2019 at 5:40 am

      Lol, ewwwww, christianity is for SLAVES!

      I mentioned “grace”, but after I made that comment I got caught up on the member calls and I noticed that permaculturehill mentioned grace long before I did.

      Maybe its very important to have a consistent framework “with regard to” nutrition. I think someone mentioned on here that there could be some cognitive dissonance if you hold conflicting beliefs with regard to what you are putting into your body.

      Anyway, change of subject and im rambling, but I sorta think the phrase “carbs make you fat” is doublespeak. Ill try to explain…imagine you eat a couple thousand calories per day everyday. And imagine that 1/3 of those calories are from protein, 1/3 are from fat, and 1/3 are from carbs.

      Picture it plotted in a pie chart, a pie chart split into three equal wedges of 33.3%. With each wedge representing the percentage of calories from the three macronutrients (fat, prot, carbs)

      Now everybody KNOWS that ‘carbs make you fat’, yeah? So if a person wants to lose FAT its a no brainer that they need to reduce their intake of CARBS, yeah? What effect would reducing carbs have upon their caloric pie chart? Can you picture it?

      If a person reduces their carb intake, then the percentage of calories from FAT increases. Its an inverse relationship. If one gets more calories from FAT, then they get fewer calories from CARBS.

      In other words, the phrase “carbs make you fat” is equivalent to the phrase “fat does not make you fat”. I dont know if that makes sense.

      Of course…some people will argue that people get fat simply from eating too many calories, but I disagree. I think people get fat from eating fat.

      I dont think calorie restriction is a long term solution for weight loss. And combining it with more exercise doesnt make things better, exercise simply increases appetite.

      I also think terms like “nutritional excellence” and “super foods” are used by scammers and the scammed.

      What do nutritional deficiencies look like anyway? Is scurvy a hoax? If scurvy is a hoax, then what about DHA OMEGA 3 or other fancy deficiencies?

      Ugh, i hate talking about nutrition.

  • 12-June-2019 at 3:13 pm


    I’m sorry I sounded irritated. Perhaps i was. It did seem that we have been going round the same points a bit. It also seemed to me that I was being asked to make what I think would be a false equivalency, in that all life is the same, whether animal or vegetable. Maybe I’m animalist 🙂

    Really, this is just a part of what I think I’m trying to do, which is to uncover my own emotion and intuition (which has been well buried at times) and to apply it deeply to my life. The opposite is: if I feel a thing or hold to a thing, but don’t do it, what is that? (Answer is cognitive dissonance.) But, why live a life in conflict with oneself? I wonder if those are the steps to NPC-dom….

    On food then, it seems to me that if I believe that animals do feel and are conscious, and I do feel something holding me back from killing them personally, but yet, I am prepared to eat them if someone else has done the killing, well, I would be in conflict and wouldn’t be acting honestly and straightforwardly. Seems obvious, right? I also wondered how others on this site deal with what to me is a conflict… hence I raised it and now we have this stream of lively and interesting (if slightly irritated, on my part – sorry) discussion.

    My conclusion is that no one has been prepared to say that this is a conflict for them. Reading between the lines and seeing the responses, I suspect this is a conflict that puts most people’s egos in self-defense mode, so they ignore or try to divert the issue by trying to muddy the waters as a way out. Some of things that have been said are pretty amazing to me – eg that babies drinking their mother’s milk are parasites!

    I have most time for Negentropic’s position, which may be something like: he may acknowledge there is a moral conflict, but he’s all about maximising my health and fitness and has found that raw meat does good stuff to his body. I don’t deny that it is true, and in the past I have done similar, but no longer.

    • 16-June-2019 at 5:15 am

      Hello Al,

      Just a quick comment to thank you, and bmseattle, and negentropic, and everyone else for the discussion. Just in the to and fro, I’ve managed to understand my own position much better and also alternative ones, despite whether I always managed to articulate it as well as I would wish.

      I guess we ended up kinda where we started, with our limited knowledge of things like the world we are in, and who we are etc. we are left with our intuitions and we work from there. Engaging with what other people think, their insights, confirmations or criticisms of our positions. But in the end, our life is our own experiment and we come to our own conclusions. Perhaps one day, someone will tell us how we did, perhaps not.

      Sometimes I think of this life as an interview where we have no idea what the job is and what the interviewer wants. Perhaps it turns out that they were looking for a Nietzschean overman and all the christians will cry out, ‘If only I had known I would have been like that!’ Perhaps they are looking for meek and compassionate souls who endure suffering for the sake of others and all the Teutonic heroes will cry out, ‘If only I had know I would of been like that!’ But that’s the point, if we knew we would be faking it.

      Anyway, thanks to all once again for helping me a lot with my own thoughts. In a few months I’ll let you know how I’m doing on the ‘Negentropic diet”.

      • 16-June-2019 at 6:59 am

        Hey, yep, back where we started perhaps, but like you, I have clarified my position too. A sincere thanks to you (and others) for the opportunity.

        So many positions, explanations, ideas, processes, methodologies, etc. None of us really know as much as we would like. But it seems clear that there is much value in the exploration of these thoughts. To me it’s enlivining and catalyzing. And maybe even beneficial for our health. I for one, am trying hard to remember to bless my food now 🙂

        • 16-June-2019 at 7:14 am

          Oh as an aside on blessing food.

          In my old monastery, the cooks would have to get a blessing from a priest before cooking. As christians, we would always bless the food with a prayer if eating communally and if on our own make the sign of the cross over it whilst giving thanks.

          There are numerous tales in monastic literature of a lazy monk who did not get a blessing before cooking the food. In the stories, there is a saintly monk at the table who tastes the food and immediately realises that it has not to be blessed and the flabbergasted lazy cook owns up. The story explains that those with “spiritual experience” can taste and sense the difference and would never eat unblessed food and that food prepared with thanksgiving and gratitude is tasty and more nutritious and removes the harm of poisons (GM, pesticides etc.)

          Of course one could as easily be grateful to the Cosmos and I think the benefit would be the same. Not just when eating but during the cooking process itself.

      • 19-June-2019 at 7:57 am

        What is called “Carnivore” by those who only eat cooked meat and not even all grass-fed (such as Shawn Baker who eats grain-fed Rib-eye steaks, often from Costco, and some other people who go on The Joe Rogan Shillery Experience Podcast and Rogan himself with all the bow-hunting he does and the fridges full of deer meat he eats, all cooked to various degrees) but is much better than a standard omnivore diet even if that diet was prepared by the greatest chefs in the world for a billionaire at 1000 dollars a plate. You would still do much better health-wise even if you’re a mechanic who has a 20 dollar a day food budget and sticks to all grass-fed or wild-caught meat.

        Raw Carnivore, as in only Raw Meat and nothing but Raw Meat is the true human diet. Eating cooked meat is similar to Bread addiction. When you think about it, nutritionally speaking, bread is really a disgusting thing and one of the main fairy tale limited hangout scams of Christianity is to keep people weak by making them eat more bread. They give you a bit of spiritual sustenance as bait in order to hook you into physical starvation and lack of nutrients. We are controlled from birth to debt by con-men and they are very clever and practiced at their jobs.

        People have just gotten hooked on it since they were kids, like heroin and now need to eat some kind of disgusting bread with every friggin’ thing under the sun. Bread is not even food! If you only ate bread and water you would straight up die from malnutrition. If you ate only cooked steaks and water, you would be healthy but not optimal. The only way to be in OPTIMAL health is by de-conditioning from cooked foods and taste conditioning and re-conditioning to Raw Animal Foods only diet. And just like kicking any addiction, you can either do it “cold turkey” or you can spend years slowly losing the taste for garbage like Pizza, Cheesburgers and Pie.

        Note: Pasteurized = Cooked – It means they took your dairy or whatever else and cooked most of the nutrients out of it.

        I think the only cooked foods I still eat are good quality Prosciutto, a few very good quality and tasty cheeses, the smoked wild Cod Liver in cans which Frank Tufano now sells for a dollar cheaper than Amazon and being non-perishable ships worldwide. He’s got some capital and a partner and the free-range meat only business is off the ground.

        Tufano is the hardest working businessman of the bunch and now that he has over 50,000 you tube subs, his own website and some backing capital (swarms of vegan trolls led by vagina gains sabotaged his crowd-funding campaign and got him banned) from a partner, he’ll soon end up a financial success as well and the de-facto leader of the movement. So, you’ll have a guy who people suspect of being gay and who has acted in movies directed to a gay audience while claiming to be straight himself becoming the leader of the Raw to mostly Raw carnivore movement, perfectly in line with the wider agenda of ‘normalizing’ as much abnormality as possible and giving homos more power in Western societies.

        Sv3rige is a bit of a prick who wastes people’s time personally, but he’s doing good work nutritionally and is quite “woke” in terms of conspiracies. Although I had heard Chris Kendall from Hoax Busters talk about eating raw liver and having nothing but energy for 3 days afterwards and building a whole addiction to his dwelling out in the woods of Oklahoma, I never got up the nerve to try it myself until I saw Sv3rige do it on video multiple times. Primal Edge Health used to have a great channel but now only has a pretty good one because he got mixed up with Jay Dyer and his ‘Eastern Orthodox Christian’ ramblings. Jay and Chris Kendall were pretty close for a while. I don’t know what happened or if they’re still tight since Kendall is now completely off the internet most of the time.

Leave a Reply