This video from YouTuber What I’ve Learned, released in April this year, is the best argument against the common opinion that reducing meat production/consumption would be a) good for the planet, and b) result in more land to grow crops.
It made such a big impact when it was first released that several videos/articles have been produced attempting to “debunk” it (Note “debunk”, not “refute”, a clear sign of the mindset of those involved). The creator, in turn, made a good and thorough response to those “debunkings” here.
All in all, whether you agree with all his opinions and interpretations or not, it’s good to hear someone at least attempting to take a rational approach to this topic, instead of mindlessly repeating media memes that defy common sense.
The five main points of the video are:
- The proposed effects on GHG emissions if people went meatless are overblown.
- The claims about livestock’s water usage are misleading.
- The claims about livestock’s usage of human edible feed are overblown.
- The claims about livestock’s land use are misleading.
- We should be fixing food waste, not trying to cut meat out of the equation.
Each point is clearly explained, supported with statistics and argued rationally. He even provides a PDF listed all his sources (here). It’s exactly the kind of discourse the world needs more of, on every subject.
For direct-transfer bank details click here.
It bothers me that only one “Expert” was talked to about such a large topic , not to mention Dr Frank Mitloehner has a bad rep in the Scientific Community for using inaccurate methods for his statistics. Its comical he’s making arguments and claims to support the beef industry , whom he is funded by. A quick search led me to this , make up your own mind https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/frank-mitloehner-white-paper-letter.pdf ..
Didn’t get past the first “fact” that a pan US vegan diet would reduce co2 emissions by 2.6 %, according to the New Scientist the per capita emission figure for the US is 15.5 t, and a vegan diet would reduce pc emissions by 1.5 t or 10%, four times more than the vid.
If you’re going to post clickbait shit then at least check it out, not impressed.
The whole point of the video is to debunk misleading propaganda published in mainstream magazines. It goes on to explain exactly why the propaganda stats are misleading in great detail.
If you turned it off the second it says something that contradicts something in a mainstream magazine, I don’t know why you started watching it in the first place.
I watched it, just didn’t bother checking any more “facts”, will if you want.
Just Wow, The main point of the video or article is … the facts stated about Water Consumption, Environmental Impact of Animal Farming are Overblown/Misleading … Sounds like the kind of arguments a Politician presents when he knows he can’t fight tooth to nail based on facts alone. When we clearly know about the scale of devastation caused not only physically due to animal farming/killing/slaughtering but also the emotional impact on Animals & Humans (those who do the killings) Things don’t seem so easy to Refute or “Debunk” .. I was expecting this website to be more objective and let people make up their own minds but such an opinion piece based on Food Choices is mind boggling. If such is the level of Ridiculous Biases the author is willing to spout out … it really dents the credibility of this Website as a whole.
No doubt a lot of people agree with this article as people are more inclined to like hearing Good News about their Bad Habits. For me, since its a simple choice for me to eat meat or not to eat meat … I choose not to (because i CAN). Sure whatever arguments or points people put up might hold its weight but it cannot deny the unfortunate fate of animals who have to be killed just so i can have a more pleasurable meal. To me, I can make delicious food without having to kill anyone for it, I’m sure many who eat meat can do so too .. So why choose to be cruel when you can be kind?
The above is not a moral argument about eating meat. Nowhere does it make that argument, it simply makes the case that animals do not contribute to ‘carbon emissions’, they recycle it in a closed system, and that removing animals from the agricultural ecosystem isn’t as straightforward as many argue it is, as they fill a very important niche which everyone – even vegans – currently rely on and benefit from.
I was really expecting non-meat-eaters to be more objective…it really dents the credibility of non-meat-eaters as a whole (this is me echoing your words as satire. Of course, one comment doesn’t affect your credibility as a vegetarian/vegan. What a ridiculous thing to suggest that would be!) A2
I appreciate your feedback on this, but since the Title is “Eating Less Meat Won’t Save the Planet” .. i disagree with the narrative that the article further leads with, it’s entirely possible that animal agriculture might be in competition with Oil, Automobiles, Factories and a plethora of other sources in terms of Environmental Pollution .. but stating that reducing demand of animal products won’t impact the environment in a positive way is quite glaringly false. The Video put out by What I’ve Learned , is very misleading … using statistics without a clear context and throwing numbers left and right to reach a desirable conclusion. It bothers me that only one “Expert” was talked to about such a large topic , not to mention Dr Frank Mitloehner has a bad rep in the Scientific Community for using inaccurate methods for his statistics. Its comical he’s making arguments and claims to support the beef industry , whom he is funded by. A quick search led me to this , make up your own mind https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2019-04/frank-mitloehner-white-paper-letter.pdf ..
I get it. You would rather not consider the “meat” of the article to discuss point by point.
This is another issue that REQUIRES a dialectic in order to possibly illuminate any solutions.
Do not cop out to potential slagging.
No thought for the unfortunate plants that have to die for you to have such ‘delicious food’. Nor a thought for the misplaced animals to grow your chia seeds or countless insects killed with your farmers insecticide. Your pontification shows your morals as being built upon quick sand.
This may or may not be true but simply put the treatment of animals in battery farming and the ludicrously low price of meat (made possible by the usual ethically free bean counters) are both scandalous. People eat far too much meat and would also personally benefit from at the very least reducing their meat intake.
I am absolutely against this entire pandemic / great reset Dr Who episode but nevertheless recognise ethical issues and see that anyone fighting to reduce meat consumption is fighting for the right thing.
I very much enjoy an onion, lettuce, tomato, beetroot, with a dob of mustard to go with my steak sandwich.
Bread slightly toasted.
very clever aren’t you
Just before harvest the grain with which the bread is made is drenched in glyphosate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqWwhggnbyw Stephanie Seneff demonstrates that many diseases greatly increased after 1975 w glyphosate introduction. Start listening @18:35. Shows correlation of increase of various diseases w introduction and increase of glypho– obesity, diabetes, renal disease, autism, Alzh, Parkinson’s, dementia @ 40.
Thanks for the link Penelope. I don’t eat a great deal of bread but i will definitely have a look at the video. Cheers!
I only eat local organic.
However, I choose not owning a car to afford the extra expense for the increase in budget. Then, that also allowed me to do a couple of necessary upgrades to my home.
I eat meat only when I find myself absent mindedly chewing on my arm!
Lets me know my bodies biology still requires some meat.
Re: the potential “resingularisation ecology”: you cannot look at meat production on its own. Not without thinking of the BioGrowth Economy. Not without thinking of the other five “sustainable growth economies” of the biodigital “operating system upgrade”: accelerated as the “Great Reset.” Not without thinking of the end, as in final destination, of industrial capitalism. Not without thinking of the resource and bioenergetic inputs in, and the waste out of industrial capitalism. Not without thinking about the source to sink availability of primary resources, and the planetary maximums of biocapacity. Not without thinking of the sociological implications and entailments of the thinking raised so far. Not without thinking of the mass and individual implications for health, wealth, and wellbeing. Or thinking through the psychological implications. Or thinking about thinking. Or thinking about language, as the medium of thinking (discounting deveiving “evil genies” or “ego homuncili”; hopefully in the previous paradigm of rethinking thinking.) Or thinking about how we developed this current linguicultural way of thinking: which is rightly called philology.
You might then discover that natural persons, human embodiment, connection to place, etc. were eliminated from the current thought processes a priori from the start. How did we end up in such a careless, thoughtless, and unfeeling civilisation? It was rationally-causally designed that way. Mankind left humanity and nature out of its instrumental, utilitarian, rational, procedural, causal, mechanistic, and then industrialised thinking from the start.
To put humanity and nature back into the thought process: we need a form of ecosophy, applied global philosophy, ecological philosophy, or resingularisation ecology. Which may open a new way of thinking that puts people first: not rules them out and eliminates them as a sole primary consideration. The world is not neatly linearly causal and deterministic: but interconnected as interactions and processes compounding complexities and assemblages and multiplicities and pluralities and ecologies of interconnections of processual “pure differences” everywhere. To which rational, causal, analytic, mechanistic, and reductive thinking is nothing but vivisection and previolence.
It is not up to me: but single issue “meat or less meat” reductionism is just as analytical and mechanistic as all the other autonomised “identitarian” issues. Where even the single issues have cancellation issues. Faced with “biodigital convergence” toward singularity (mathematical bad infinity): there could at least be a counter-hegemonic rethink and convergence of a different kind toward joined up dynamic systems thinking: which is what a resingularisation ecology would be. A different type of pluripotential singularity.
Confused? We would have to claim the language back too. Every word has a double meaning, a double movement (descent and return; open or closed; vertical or horizontal; etc) and a double hermeneutic ….dominant/hegemonic or counter-hegemonic.
It appears that new concept invention is anathema: so the sense of words has to be changed by the sense of logic and grammar: “organic representaion.” Which is at least a resistance to the culturally hegemonic movement away from humanity toward the end-goals of the biodigital convergence. Potentiating a return toward humanity; food you can actually eat; biodiversity; more-than-human-communities; realistic and relevant pluralism; interbeing, co-adaptation, and co-evolution ….but not One!
Not ever reductively, analytically, mechanistically, essentially ‘one’: where actual individuality and autonomy remains ruled out of capitalist colonised exclusion philosophy. First person autonomy: not third person scientific, rational-historic, economic, and political authority. We are all political prisoners of our own uninhabitable philosophy. Until we learn to think ecosophically across the board. Include humanity, biodiversity, community, and geographical ecology in our thoughts: because it has been bred out of thinking. Rethink thinking!
“To put humanity and nature back into the thought process: we need a form of ecosophy, applied global philosophy, ecological philosophy, or resingularisation ecology.”
YES! I tell anyone that will listen, that:
“One cannot have ECOnomy without ECOlogy”
You’d be surprised at all the denials!
What I learned from the meat video is that if someone makes a statement as if it’s a question, you shouldn’t believe them.
Rising intonation is not just lame and annoying, I’ve decided it’s a sign of dishonesty. That person is not playing true with their self.
If it sounds like a question when they are selling you information… they are probably not sure of its veracity. They are quite likely trading in falsehoods.
On the other hand… if you Tweet that you have no intention of killing yourself. If you get a tattoo that says “whacked” so that in the event of your murder your corpse is labelled as such. If you make arrangement to access your assets (not assign your estate)…
and then the gov-a-diddle says you were found hanged.
Who u gonna believe?
– Mr Obvious
What is the government, after all?
Are you assuming it’s a team bound by rules that ensure internal consistency and external legitimacy? How does one beget the other? Just because I follow rules does that mean you have to obey them?
What if the government is inconsistent, opportunist, pragmatic — then in whose interest does it act?
If those in government have commercial interests and motives driven by profit (even if they are 10% profit- or bonus-driven and they strive with 90% of their person just to do good and “to make the world a better place: isn’t that enough”) — which schizoid is ruling today, the money-grubber or the saviour?
And if an official informs me, in a rising tone, that; I must give the team called government some money they call “unpaid tax” on money they insist — in a rising inflexion — that I am hiding from them…
And that if I don’t hand over what (I say) I don’t have, that the team will come after me…
Telling me, or you, in a manic ascending crescendo… that you have an unpaid debt and you’d better find the money “cause you owe us… ”
Does the mock humility of a pretend question make it any easier?
approval click unmolested.
What if the government is actually part of a Global Organized Crime Cabal?
In Canada, very few takers… 1 in 3 in Nelson, BC.
approvel click generates an equal and opposite diapproval ‘click’!?!
think it just seems like that as page updates?? but, yeah noticed that too. click click.
No, it doesn’t. The page is being viewed by several hundred people at any one time. When you vote on a comment your browser renews and displays all the voting activity by other readers since you last refreshed the page
Admin, thanks for the explanation, I too used to wonder at those multiple clicks appearing when I clicked only once.
Gene shot being pushed door-to-door in UK and U.S.
“You’re on the list. Your house comes up as residents unvaccinated.”
“Do you have someone under the age of 12 in the house?”
Since this Kommunity Korps officer has access to government records she already knows if a 12-or-under lives in your house…
So the “question” will be asked with a descending intonation, as a statement, for added passive aggression.
Heh… The knock on the door used to be a vacuum cleaner salesman. Now it’s the vacuum itself…
Land shark! 😉
I’ll just leave this here. Matt Hancock appears to be fooked!
I wonder if Dominic Cummings was aware of this, along with everyone in the Cabinet, and that was why Boris Johnson couldn’t dismiss him when his misdemeanours came to light. I very much suspect Johnson himself had many a secret to hide also. They were, and probably still are, all blackmailing each other whilst destroying the country.
I am pretty certain Johnson does – he has personal financial difficulties that lay him quite open to blackmail. In fact the whole government ethos is much like it was in the 18th century and in the first half of it in particular bribery was rife.
Not forgetting Neil Ferguson. Johnson most likely has a very large cupboard full of skeletons.
male or female, human or animal/mineral/vegetable? Who or what would fook the Handjob?
She appears to be quite attractive and is a millionaire, and married too….but that doesn’t say anything about her taste in men. The hypocrisy of these people is stunning.
Get her on.
Susan Fiona Michie (born June 1955) is a British psychologist and director of The Centre for Behaviour Change. Michie is a member of the Communist Party of Britain and was also member of its predecessor the Communist Party of Great Britain.
She is also an advisor to the British Government via the SAGE advisory group on matters concerning behavioural compliance with government regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Michie says masks are forever.
Dr Vernon Coleman lays into “it”.
Masks are no longer mandatory in Greece outdoors, although they still have to be worn indoors in public places. It is 35 Centigrade now in Athens and even a thin cotton mask is a quick route to breathing problems.
I guess humans evolved to eat meat and veg at the same time as our chimpanzee cousins did.
7 Nutrients That You Can’t Get from Plants
To which add a newly discovered vitamin, K2. The Japanese get K2 from their favourite stinky gooey bacterial porridge, Natto. We get B12 likewise from a bacterial source. I suppose vegans would count bacteria as vegetable rather than animal or mineral.
Mushrooms contain Vit. D. Your guts produce Vit. K if you eat well.
And if you leave mushrooms to dry in the sun they produce far more vit D
Vegan B12 supplements are made from plant bacteria
Vegan D3 supplements are made from lichen
Not long ago they was offering a b12 shot as in vaccine.
Thanks. Mostly? Predominantly? With few exceptions?
Hello NickM: Have you ever noticed how “sensitive” vegans are about dietary choice? I’ve never met a meat eater who suggested that everyone should eat meat. Maybe it’s the lack of B12…
Paul, yes, I certainly noticed “vegetarian sensitivity” at a barbecue when I placed my meat sausage next to someone’s veggie burger; the owner pushed his veggie burger away from my sausage with an almost Biblical shudder of disgust. “Unclean! Unclean!”
It’s understandable for people newly exposed to the grim reality of factory farms to be disgusted by meat.
It is also very ironic when people talk about vegans pushing their diet.
Pushing meat is simply normalised and goes unnoticed
Aren’t monocultures of GM crops, grown on dead soil ‘fed’ by chemicals & drowned in pesticides equally grim?
And it’s not vegans pushing their diet that’s the problem. It’s the elite pushing veganism for political ends.
B12 is a soil borne bacteria.
It’s found in unwashed veg from soil splashed by rain, and in meat whose the owner was injected with B12 supplements
Ready for a serious discussion… Let’s talk aliens.
Jay Dyer breaks down the use of crypto-zoological narratives and alien mythos to drive the globalist agendas through cults, invocations and fear.
Hollywood has the same take on aliens. Of all the different paths the story could take — it’s limited to the one path: Aliens are always but always into one world government and Malthus.
Notice that the same features turn up with ritual abuse, intel-connected cults and government psychological research.
Give us your children… and we’ll save their cyber covid polygon digital and biological identities… Aaaaaah.
Jeffrey Epstein came too soon with the revelation of his New Mexico farm where he wanted to dose a generation of Millennials with his ranch dressing.
It is Klaus that wants your babies!
I was an avid UFO researcher for years, 3 things turned me off most published research. After reading all Timothy Goods books and getting the impression he held Adamski in high regard as it was the first research he’d read that put him on this track, I managed to get a copy of Adamskis 1955 1st edition that had the pics he took “from an alien craft at another alien craft” lets just say 1955 ‘photoshop’ was ALOT more obvious than modern standards (photocopy of photcopy) the guy is an obvious conman, I couldn’t believe Tim Good was taken in by it, Tim is also convinced the moon landing were genuine (and if anyone thinks they were genuine they’re under researched!). Tims books do have some very strange pictures I can’t explain tho, the Brazil “creature” still sticks in my mind as possibly the oddest thing I’ve ever seen.
Then I started to research prominent people in the Ufology scene, illusions were shattered, 1 by 1 it looked like they were all either deluded, or conmen. There are some genuine investigators, they tend to stay out of the public domain all together, they’re more like librarians collating stories and pictures with no concrete conclusions, those that do publish remain open minded lacking definitive proofs. Researching Steven Greer (before the discolsure nonsense) put a cap on it, utter conman.
My personal observations lead me to believe something is out there, weather it’s of earth origin or not is open to question. Besides lots of seemingly genuine video/pictures, mass witness statements from credible people, of very odd sightings, I’ve also witnessed two strange things personally.
Skywatching on a clear night you can soon spot satelites moving across the sky, they look like a distant star moving across the sky, sometimes you will see them flash brightly for a second (I presume it’s solar panels reflecting the sun) but twice I have seen them take a 90 degree course change, satelites cannot do that! Very strange!
It’s easy to convince people who want to believe. I was camping with some friends yrs ago, were we sat round the campfire discussing UFOs while we were all watching the skys, rum may have been involved, I pointed out some satelites claiming they were UFOs, told them my 90 degree turn observation, much wowing and amazement, after we’d spotted a dozen or more, I explained I could sometimes communicate telepathicly to them, sometimes they would answer; my friends remained sceptical, so I went through the charade of projecting my thoughts at a satelite saying “give me a sign” sure enough within 15 mins the satelite flashed the suns reflection off it’s solar panels – chins hit the floor (lol). Next day some of them were still shaken by it, it had really effected them, so over breakfast I explained my theory about solar panels reflecting, you could read the relief on their faces 🙂
I’m of the opinion black budget projects/science is ~30-50yrs ahead of anything in the public domain, I would not be convinced by an “Alien landing” even if they interviewed one of them on TV, especially if it was pushing ANY agenda, unless perhaps if one landed on my land and I had personal experience of it.
It’s all intersting tho, and something is out there.
Food for thought. I’ll have to look up the Brazil incident.
Someone did a video recently, was it Corbett, on the Rockefeller-Greer connection which ties to my original post about psychological manipulation to serve the one world agenda…
That doesn’t diminish or dismiss in any way the possibility of life beyond Earth.
“That doesn’t diminish or dismiss in any way the possibility of life beyond Earth.”
More likely a high scientific probability than a mere empty “possibility”. Astro-physicists tell us, “We are made of star dust”. So is this Earth we tread on.
reply in spam check 😉
Visitors could come in any container! I fully expect to wake up one night in conversation with an alien. Just, in my dream, it’s a talking microbe (micro-bot).
Aside: follow-up on why CDC pause in vaxing kids. Seems they’re admitting to 1226 cases of myocarditis, 40% of which occurred in people 29 or younger, mostly male.
Since VAERS represents only 1-10% of actual occurrences, this wd translate to 12,260 to 122,600 cases of myocarditis. The other 60% was mainly in males to age 39 and females 12 to 24.
Guess heart inflammation is sufficiently rare in these age groups that they felt they cdn’t get away w ignoring it. More occurrences after dose 2 than dose 1.
More on that story here:
We’ll be seeing a lot of ‘vaccine remorse’ in the months and years to come – assuming the media allow it to be aired.
Thanks, Simon. Such a damn shame what’s happening. Sooner or later we’re going to have to admit that there’s just the one solution– and quit pussy-footing around.
What does that matter? This article is complete and total nonsense. Completely useless. This is about power, domination, and control. I’m eating meat if I have to kill it all myself. I do the opposite of whatever Gates, Schwab, and the democrats advocate for. They don’t care or give a damn about truth. There is only a fight for power. This is a time of war. Reason and civilization are over for the time being. Act accordingly.
Act on REASON; CIVILIZATION IS JUST ABOUT OVER.
Hello, my name is Big Al, and I eat meat.
And you can have my meat when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Not sure anything but life itself is worth fighting to the death for.
Freedom, liberty, beer.
Hey Big al: Start a support group. Call it Meat Eaters Anonymous… Serve plenty of beer…
Your meat will also be cold.
I will not touch your meat.
eating meat per se is not the problem.
Eating meat 3x a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a
It’s only a problem if you make it one. And besides, we have plenty of poor people who can’t afford to eat meat, so let’s keep it that way.
For clarity, perhaps we should look at one simple fact.
We have evolved in such way (o.k. if you are religious, we are created) that we easily digest meat and vegetables. Took hundreds of millions of years to get to that point.
In only one generation lots of herbivore animals would get extinct if suddenly there is no plants and lots of carnivore animals would get extinct if there is no other animals as food.
Now let’s continue with consequences of having specific social structures, health, ethical and moral discussions of what we should or shouldn’t eat.
I think you may be overstating the case when you say “we easily digest meat….” For one thing, we evolved to digest raw meat; cooked meat is a whole different animal.
Nastran, let us NOT discuss what I and others choose to eat. It’s called freedom, or inborn rights.
what you ‘choose to eat is called freedom’?
yeah, freedom as defined by morons for idiots.
Penelope,Title of the article we are discussing: “Eating less meat won’t save the planet. Here’s why.”Looks as if you want to comment but you don’t want to talk about it.
Part of the value of this site is exchange of information and ideas. Questions. Answers. Opinions.
The only thing that is left out is the Corpse Food Franchises (McDick’s; Burger Kink; KFC, etc.)
Utilize and waste so much developing world resources to grow their profit Margins, and the more meat exploited keeps the price down.
There was a song from the ’80’s (Call It Democracy – Bruce Colburn) with the line in it, “billion burgers worth of beef”.
Western “Democ(k)racies” refuse to deal with sovereign food sovereignty, instead exploiting other countries using the Global Banking Cartel to saddle those countries as the “Wests’ Supermarket, giving them next to nothing for there industry and suggesting “Tourism” as a economic generator (Cheap holiday in other people’s misery!) and tying up their economy with debt!
https://genius.com/Bruce-cockburn-if-a-tree-falls-lyrics, not forgetting “if i had a rocket launcher “
The irony. Only one thing will save the planet and the last time I checked they busy doing it. On another note, found an excellent search engine which as far as I can tell does not in any way censor search results or use other search engines. mojeek dot com. Type in coronavirus scamdemic in google and see what happens. Then type the same search in mojeek. The difference is quite shocking. Google doesn’t appear to be our friend anymore.
thanks will give it a go, I’ve been quite pleased with quant,com google only wants to sell you shit, and then your choices.
Life on Earth
It is not as if we have (or ever had) a choice. The universe is driven by irresistible forces, as is the rare phenomenon of life. Nobody wanted the agricultural revolution but it happened because the apparent benefits were enormous. More security for one. Those that adopted agriculture became more powerful and more numerous and more mobile and wiped out those that didn’t. And so on to the present day. The forests and fish stocks that sustained our ancestors are gone so there is no way but forward. The agricultural revolution required more domestication, more tameness. That explains why the 60 million magnificent wild bison that freely roamed the prairies had to be exterminated and replaced by 100 million tame cattle in pens.
Irresistible forces have brought us to the brink of extinction. There is no point blaming anyone or anything. Life has lasted 3.5 billion years on this planet. It can’t go on forever. Even stars die. Live (and die) with it.
We are NOT at the brink of extinction. I suspect you are believing too much of the propaganda of TPTB.
Stars may die but the Universe may be reborn to form new stars. — Roger Penrose
The bison were exterminated to crush native Americans and their way of life.
amongst other things, aye
The forests are not gone
Latest images from satellites appear to show better than expected forestation
But no surprise if co2 is higher???
Wonderful. More biofuels means more glyphosate in the air we breathe, from burning the remnants of crops grown w it. It’s destructive to the innate immune system.
To much Meat? What are we talking about? It is all ontological question. So what food really is?
The fact: what we think is food (or meat) is not food at all, not food we think we purchase in supermarkets. These are no foods but agrochemical agroindustrial products profitably designed and developed solely for purpose of industrial machine driven mass production for profit, devoid of fundamental nutrients while loaded with industrial grease, sugar derivatives, shelf life preservatives and lots of unlisted compounds unrelated to product itself but required for purpose of smooth breakdowns free mass industrial production of those fake foods or what I would call marginally eatable food substitutes.
Any honest nutritionist admits that 99% of all supermarket products cannot qualify as food as they provide little to no nutrients required for human body to function but contain substances that actually impair normal functions of human organism including causing serious harm to human body.
That is the reality. In fact cutting 90% of all “food” production of shit wrongly called food we swallow today would have no negative impact but positive one on people’s health for that reason alone if the remaining 10% we eat was real, nutritious food.
What we need is to eat no shit that gets us killed and makes us weak and hungry as in much smaller perhaps in order of magnitude smaller quantities there is enough of real food for everyone to survive and thrive. And we can grow it by ourselves.
I’ve been wondering from the start of this just how much is related to food quality, immunocompromisation, cognitive impairment, and air quality, infecting the lungs. I live in the SE England and many of our friends (many now former friends) work at Gatwick Airport or in the City. So when we talk of mind viruses causing mass hysteria, a common rebutal is “but so and so has been ill for three months”, or “so and so was ventilated.” To which: what they eat (shit) and what they breathe (petrol or aviation fuel) seems just as relevant to me as any ‘virus.’ And, the number of people we know who are developing shingles and mystery bad backs is quite alarming. Has humanity just suppressed an already immunocompromised generation even further? I think so.
the nhs want you eating bugs soy bpa corn syrup and slurping flouride
and why rokerfella not my life already
when i go to the doc he makes me feel special always has a pill for me
he always finds a new disease last week on zoom call he said i was mental health
negative so he gives me some lithium and prozac to make me positive
If you have an opinion you go on anti depressants
in the old days in law dictionary
humans where known as monster
human meat human is in medicine food in the air via blood cull trails
fast food pies amd sum such
clearly not mclibel
soylent green was khazar documentary
babies where in fizzy drinks and soups
they say for only for flavours
the clinics abortion
life sold off multi billion dollar industry
a company called sonomex uses baby cells for flavours
vaccines have baby in them
where do all the vanished go
some many even are processed
Great video. The staples of veganism, legumes & grains, are high in carbohydrate, which begets insulin. Complex carbs are not quite as bad for you as processed carbs, but diets rich in carbs have a higher incidence of diabetes, cancer, arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Insulin is the culprit and it can’t be avoided w a high-carb diet.
Here’s an enjoyable, quick-paced video showing you the evidence from paleopathology.
Animal fats, saturated fats, are necessary to your health. Replacing these w vegetable oil documented as ruinous. The cholesterol hypothesis and its maintenance is supported by the same powers who perpetrated the global warming hoax.
There is no end to conflicting information. One thing that is interesting is that we humans, as smart as we think we are, can’t even work out what our natural diet is. That’s what reductionist science has done for us.
Yes. And (in my very humble opinion) we humans don’t even know how long we have been on earth or know how we can even get off of it. Life is one big beautiful mystery.Those fckin scientists need to get over themselves.
Unless we stop watching TV…
Then we can work out most things.
Focusing requires peace of mind, and we won’t ever get that from TV.
My mentor, Prof.Robert Harkness, said humans and rats are widespread because we are not fussy feeders. Our natural diet is whatever we can forage. He said rats will nibble a teeny taste of something new. If there are no ill effects they will try a bit more the next time. Same with homo sapiens.
“If it walks, runs, swims, creeps, crawls or flies the chances are you can eat it raw.” — Air Force survival manual for downed pilots.
Eating plants is riskier, because plants cannot run away so they protect themselves with biochemical weapons.
No, that’s what propaganda by the billionaire-controlled media has done for us.
The cholesterol hypothesis is the most-tested and most-disproven theory in all of medicine. Neither Rockefeller-dominated medicine nor the sychophantic media will ever tell you the truth. But here it is again & she gives you the studies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2UnOryQiIY Nina Teicholz, author of
“The Big FAT Surprise.”
It’s a good thing we all recognise the enemy is the UN.
otherwise this might devolve into a battle between vegetarians and meat eaters…
Inuit and antarctic hobos exempt ?
That would be racist.
yes, they could compete to decide it, some icy sprint across the polar desert perhaps – and if the winner is north, they land a years supply of penguin soup, and south, Arctic fox casserole ?
I haven’t eaten meat since I layed my own table, and before that, as much as I could respectfully refuse…or consume without retching – and as for saving the earth..there’s plenty of dangerous and destructive meat of the two legged variety in the government,political and financial sphere, that without, would certianly liberate the Planet.
They taste like pork so i’m led to believe
not having being shipwrecked and adrift for months in an open boat with my shipmates passing away around me – I really couldn’t say, but would imagine that any one of that cabal of cretins would taste like the decaying and puss filled ogres they are, suitable for maggots only.
Wow! The meat eating issue is really a sore thumb, isn’t it? I have never seen so many, or so predictable, downvotes as when someone has the temerity to suggest there’s something not quite right about eating meat.
It’s quite true that eating meat is fully consistent with nature – though some seem to have this rose colored glasses notion of nature, whereas in truth nature is very much as Thomas Hobbes said:”Life is nasty, brutish and short.” At least, thanks to humans, for everything else on the planet.
What we don’t eat, we dispatch in subtler ways – like US Navy sonar, which disorients whales and other sea creatures. And by disrupting feeding grounds so we can extract the mineral resources so we can make cell phones so people can cease interpersonal relationships.
We got it all down to a fine art, don’t we? Eat steak, while we text granny to say how dearly we love her.
Hobbes was wrong about the nature of man. He had to say man was a treacherous beast in order to justify the need for a master/ slave State and his idea of the social contract. Eric Fromm shows in the Anatomy of Human Destructiveness that there is no innate destructiveness or cruelty in man but that those traits are the product of elaborate cultural complexes…in other words…the technique of the master/ slave State itself. When you paint man as a vicious, cruel, destructive beast all bets are off and you’re at the mercy of the atheists, the Darwinists and the eugenicists who take control, build society and run the show. The same ghouls behind our current “health” snafus. Just ever more shaping and moulding and behaviour modification into that flawed model. That everyone goes along with. (except for the good chaps here)
It’s pretty funny what you say, since one of my hypotheses
is that Man went bad when we started eating cooked meat.
That’s right, hunting, not scavenging, is when it all went wrong.
I could explain further but nobody’s interested,
and it’s not backed by anything like data, just
one observation. The Lord of Hosts swoons over
the sweet smell of roasting meat. My guess is that
this lust for red meat, lust for blood, lust for the hunt,
for killing and death neatly explains almost everything
wrong with Homo. It almost becomes simple and
obvious when you put it that way.
That would be a tidy theory but it’s not supportable. There’s still pockets existing today that have meat as part of the diet who live peacefully. It’s a myth that meat = blood lust and wild aggression. “Primitive” peoples supplemented diets with meat for eons…without any particular hunt lust, without lust for killing and without blood lust. The nature of man had nothing to do with these things. Man in his natural environment has been shown to be a timid creature with a reverence for the animals he killed. He is more prone to flight than fight…like most mammals. He will defend vital interests, sure…but there’s no inherent cruel lust. It’s explained in Fromm’s book.
Great comment. I’ve been vegan for three years as a blue pill situation: holy shit I don’t need to eat what giant companies have been telling me my whole life! And I’m fine! feel great, much more aware of my body, never sick, etc…
The fact that humans *can* eat meat and dairy doesn’t mean we *should*.. If you were stranded in the Sahara and the only thing around was a candy store, then yes of course you’d need to stay alive. That’s why we’re omnivores.
Veganism is the ultimate blue pill scenario. If you haven’t seen Game Changers, it’s worth a watch. Pro football teams, the US military, weight lifters…are all starting to realize that meat is *less* efficient for your body, not more.
I realize this article, and your comment, is more about the politics of sustainability, etc, but veganism definitely gets a bad rap…and this whole “soy boy” nonsense is straight from the big agra playbook.
The difference between OffGuardian and the “leftist” blog I used to read (Truthdig) is more clearly apparent in the issue of meat than anything else. On Truthdig, it was the meat eaters who were in the minority; here, it is the other way around.
As for me personally, I might be tempted to go vegan…if I had more money. Eating good food – even a step above organic – is not on the venue of those with meager incomes.
I found the money issue to be the opposite. Making Indian dishes with beans that cost $5.00 per giant bag. It’s only when you start buying the Bill Gates impossible “burgers” that it starts to get expensive. In other words, if you go vegan than just do it right, instead of eating fake burgers.
I’m a vegan on disability benefits, where are you getting the idea veg, beans, rice, pasta, is more expensive than meat? Check it out:
https://thestingyvegan.com/vegan-on-a-budget/#:~:text=The key to eating vegan on a budget,budget and my favourite money-saving tips and tricks.
Doesn’t need to be organic, or complicated. Some vegan products, I’d disagree with the article a bit and say are worth it even on a budget, a tub of butter goes a long way and is indistingushable from dairy on a baked tater.
And, yeah, the stance here seems very anti-veganism, in a way that’s odd. Off-Guardian needs to sort itself out on this to retain credibility – this is actual corporate propaganda, it looks silly to hate on veganism so much as to post that. Not eating animals isn’t hard.
Off-guardian does not need to take a pro-vegan stance to ‘retain credibility’. What silliness. A2
I’ll stop eating meat when humans have evolved to have no incisors for ripping flesh and the mouth contains only teeth a ruminant would find useful
Fear hormone flooded meats & industrialized slaughterhouses are definitely not healthy morally, physically and metaphysically. US govt subsidized beef industry along with alot of big Ag production so it’s doubtful any of these mega mass production methodologies are sustainable.
Freedom of individual lifestyle choices is a prerequisite to a harmonious planet. So of course those inclined have a right to meat. Local sourced etc but the idea that mass industrialized Meat Inc is sustainable is highly doubtful.
But no less sustainable than BigAg monocultures, right? Isn’t it industrialised farming we need to curtail in final analysis?
Yes totally agree
You do actually realise “ending industrialised farming” equates to “going back to the land” and reverting to a solar economy? Which under modern hierarchisation and gendered structures equates to something like feudal debt servitude. At eleven years labour for each barrel of oil, or eleven years for $30! Ergo: we need to do a lot more than end industrialised farming. But, being so dependent on oil and hydrocarbons means that we need to be thinking about this from forty years ago. But right now will have to suffice. We can argue about ‘peak oil’ all day, but at an 7-8% annual decline in oil production, even on the industries own timescales, we need to be restoring soils, bees, other pollinators, water tables, etc. tomorrow. Which entails the transition of all civilisation over the coming decades. Which ecologists have been saying for years. Ending industrial farming means ending industrial capitalism which means ending industrial privileges which means something like an equality of production and distribution and at least a potential for humanity. Starting now.
It seems as though current oil reserves will only take us to 2069. Last year new finds provided less than a 90 day supply at present levels of consumption. So in 12 months (2020) we found 3 months oil, which facilitates 47 more years, and it’s probably expensive to extract.
It’ll start with travel restrictions – oh it’s already begun with the vax pass – and perhaps other restrictions on movement – well I’ll be blowed that’s already begun too. One is beginning to sense some sort of plan…
Glad you could make it,admittedly its only taken you 15 months but glad you are here all the same,please help yourself to a tinfoil hat,which by the way is far more noble to be seen wearing than the facial panty liner of subjugation and shame.
Private air travel will be illegal by 2030,there will be 4 airports serving the whole of the UK.This is the plan,this WILL happen unless we collectively stop it occurring
The UK government no longer governs,it takes orders from the WEF and issues edicts .
Petrol and diesel vehicles banned by 2030 i don’t for one minute think anyone will have green credentials enough for a single private plane journey by then
In your new 20 minute towns and cities you will have no need of travel outside of your ‘zone’ everything will be provided for you
Whether you like it or not !
What we need to be doing is neither here nor there,unless we collectively get off our arses and stop what IS occuring you will eat what you are told to eat when you are told to eat and woe betide you if you try and stray from the plan
Your food choices are becoming more limited by the day,this is by design not by any market forces,the vast swathes of the planet due to be ‘rewilded’ will contain all the foodstuffs we could ever need after the great die off,there is the downside the penalty will be death should you help yourself from the protected wildernesses.
Carnivore v vegan is secondary to stopping what is happening now,a cheap sideshow for the chattering classes
YOU yes you are being lined up to be killed,as the ‘vaccine’ courses through your veins and then into your organs causing untold damage and immense reduced life expectancy your argument regarding vegan or carnivore will be viewed as frankly ridiculous
There are no menu choices in the afterlife
I agree, whether we like it or not, I believe the future will be similar to that of smoking. Meat will be taxed more and subsidising will be cut to reflect the true price of the end product. This in turn will reduce consumption.
Thank you for touching upon something I’ve felt for decades regarding the factory farming of animals: the changes to their physical state caused by the conditions they are raised in and killed by. If we know anything at all about physiology, it’s that stress is a killer. Imagine the endless stress we put factory animals through.
And we expect good, wholesome meat from this horror show?
The video is wrong.
Eating meat increases the layers of consumption: plants – cows – people.
Not eating meat requires only two layers: plants – people.
So who should eat the grass?
It’s pretty well explained in the video actually. Most plants that are food for animals are non-edible for humans.
Simple farming technology allows humans cultivate their own food with a much smaller footprint than is required to feed livestock.
Nothing like a dose of reality to darken the day of the average moral crusading, virtue signaler, is there?
The average moral crusading virtue signaler didn’t get where they are today without the ability to dent reality – especially in the realm of the chance to prohibit something in the name of virtue.
The objective is not to deny meat to the masses (despite that effect), but to encourage the perspicacious to relocate somewhere where they can hunt, butcher, and eat meat as per the nature of h sapiens – nuts & berries too.
Great video, very informative!
Yes, the whole meat “debate” is a smokescreen. I have been a vegetarian/vegan for more than 30 years, but I would say for 25 years I have been a veggie out of habit – that is , not ideological. When I started, it was definitely ideological. But early on I became aware that it was obvious that going vegan wasn’t going to “bring down the system”, and the logic that it was, was wishful thinking at best. During the mid-1980’s and early ’90’s (when I stopped paying attention) veganism was the singular thing that united most anarchists. It was lifestyle not social revolution. Why? Was the CIA putting this ideology into the heads of “radicals” as they knew that culturally these ideas would become mainstream? Covid makes you reevaluate your own history…
You have not been a vegetarian/vegan, you have either been one or the other, but after 25 you would know this, right? Vegetarian/vegan makes about as much sense as vegan/paleo, they are not associated in anyway what so ever.
Vegan is an ethical choice were you don’t see animals as commodities. You don’t eat them, you don’t wear them and you don’t go to the circus to watch the dancing bear.
Vegetarian, is someone who has slightly woke up to their unethical choices, but through cognitive dissidence justifys the eating of dairy. Mainly because of addiction to eggs and cheese. This is contradictory since these people tend to take the moral high ground when the dairy industry is the most brutal of all.
Environmental issues come in second, but like above, one will believe what they want to based on their habits and addictions.
That’s stupid. Back then 95% of my diet was vegan. But when I would go out for pizza a couple of times a month I’d have cheese on it. And the “ethics” are bullshit and full of holes. Humans have been eating animals since before we were homo sapiens. The “cruelty” comes from BIg Ag industrial/capitalist food production methods. Animals raised in traditional (pre-Green Revolution), i.e. organic farming should produce no ethical dilemma. The “moral high ground” is no different than choosing a religious sect to follow. It just another dumb way to define the exclusivity of your tribe – which is counter-productive if you want to bring any real positive change to the world (’cause you’ll need lots of other people who don’t agree with you on everything).
In the big scheme of things with what we are dealing with now, like the bio-security state, (one should eat healthy of course), your diet just doesn’t matter.
I don’t belong to any tribe, what’s more, I really dislike the “V” words. It’s you that labeled yourself vegan/vegetarian. Sounds to me it’s you that desperately wants to be a member of the club, but can only muster 95%. In other words you make ethical choices when it suits, a bit like Boris.
Anyway you have me interested, tell me more about the “ethics that are full of holes”, as the only hole I can see at this time is the one you are digging…
You should focus on class, not food.
The best reason for being vegetarian is to try to avoid causing pain and suffering.
I have heard this argument for years. Your statement represents a lack of understanding of real-world economics. Unfortunately, there is not a causal relationship between what food you choose to buy and what and how Big Ag chooses to produce what it does to maximize profits. If you think demand causes supply you don’t know anything about (the $Trillions per year sector of) advertising. When was the last time you saw on TV an ad for broccoli? If fewer people are eating meat in the West, more are eating meat in the East. Big Ag really couldn’t give a shit.
Fortunately, we can all buy (or grow ourselves) broccoli without having to watch adverisements. If consumes stop consuming meat, farmers will stop farming it.
Yes, and UN agendas are specifically designed to cause pain and suffering.
Agreed. So let’s both stop eating meat, *and* stop electing globalist leaders following the corrupt U.N. agenda. Win-win.
Here’s where vegans and vegetarians draw a line in the sand. I’ve been shot down before for suggesting it, but here goes.
Plants just might actually be sentient beings! “Oh no, sir, they cannot be for they have neither brain nor nervous system!” Ahm: unless they have an infinitely more sophisticated system than our primitive one?
Plants have nervous impulses, using some of the same biochemicals that animals use. Plants also communicate with neighbouring plants by sound. It’s on YouTube; the scientists who found this out admit to feeling embarrassed about publishing their research.
ecosystems even re-distribute resources, allegedly.
Mutualism in nature (distinguished from symbiosis or parasitism) is a hot research topic these days.
I agree. I believe plants are sentient beings. In fact, it’s arrogant hubris for humans to assert they are not. So where does that leave us? We face a dilemma:
The universe presents us with a terrible moral paradox. No way out. The best solution, which to my knowledge has not yet been invented, is to find a way to transfer energy (for example, using an electromagnetic field) directly to the mitochondria, so that neither food nor metabolic digestion of food is needed. There may be a few non-scientific hurdles along the way, of course. Big Ag and Big Pharma will not be eager to greet the invention of such technology.
So . . . in the end we are left with a lesser evil choice. Clearly, if humans eat only plants, and do not eat meat, that will cause less killing and suffering than eating meat which eats plants. One layer of killing vs. two layers of killing.
More broadly, if one chooses to argue that killing animals is morally justifiable because any alternative involves at least some killing, then question of moral relativism arises, the slippery slope argument. If one is forced by circumstance, or worse for one’s own please choose to commit evil acts, then then there is the seductive temptation to rationalize more serious moral transgressions.
How far down the slippery slope will we slide? Putting the horror of eating meat aside, I believe lesser evil is likely the rationale many deep state actors who presumably were once morally principled actors became corrupted. After participating in 9/11 or the Iraq War (killing 1-2 million people, based purely on lies and the desire for hegemonic power), for example, what scruples would such actors still possess? They will stop at nothing. The Covid hoax and the Great Reset (and yes, that includes the Soros version of the Green New Deal) are, in my opinion, being perpetrated by psychopaths so far down the slippery slope of moral depravity they have lost all hope of redemption.
A few “religious people including meditatiors have been studied closely. They seem to survive for years without food. Their values, like those of aborigines, are a threat to the capitalist cult.
I’ve heard of a couple of such people. A famous case is Prahlad Jani. Wikipedia.
That was Leonardo da Vinci’s reason. But Hitler was a vegetarian, and he caused a lot of pain and suffering.
One of the great ironies of human history is that perpetrators of war and genocide can, and often do, love their families and friends, enjoy beauty and art, contribute to charities and have subjectively rational motivations for their acts.
hmmm … Hitler felt that Germany would be far better served with the growing of more vegetable gardens than setting aside so much land to feed stock animals. As such, vegetarianism, if executed properly, could play a role in helping to stem the rising tide of the food crisis.
Green Nazi Political Vegetarianism
for the heck of it, duckduckgo search ~ eugenicist vegetarians … george bernard shaw, nikola tesla, annie besant
of course some may not hv actually been vegetarian, secretly practiced cannibalism… i had no real choice, started at a very young age, & when i recovered such memories i didnt even want to look at red meat, didnt eat any for several yrs. however, i continued to eat poultry & fish as i wasnt interested in going on a vegan diet again (no eggs & dairy – allergic to both) b/c when i did it for around 6 months i experienced loss of vitality.
Look, be honest about shit with yourselves.
the only people that will be going meat free is us.
if we let them.
if you think for one minute we’re in it together your insane.
imagine Robin Hood times, forests and hunting for the barons and rich only.
you get caught hunting…
there’s a reason dick head gates has bought loads of farming land and they’re making places off limits for humans…
They did say educating the poor was the worst mistake they made…
I say no, the worst they could do was tell us.
There’s also a reason uk police have upgraded weapons from 9mm short range to .223 longer range rifle rounds.
Also can anybody remember that website that predicted a huge population decline around the world about now? I can’t for the life of me remember the name.
Deagel.com used to, but the 2025 population projections don’t seem to be available any more
It was deagle.com not deacon com
This site has mirrored the original
The only way to save the planet is to stop the people who are actively destroying it—the war machines, geoengineers, big pharma, big ag, big tech big corporations big banks big insurance big brother, WEF, etc.
Hello fame: Right on target. The corporate model is suffocating the entire web of life. Let’s wear a mask and think big…
Again as mentioned previously: the Planet does not need saving. It will happily continue to be the cargo bay for SS Sol on its outward journey from the big bang or whatever. Our particular life-form may no longer be aboard in its current form but we’ll only have our selves to blame.
Those behind agenda-21 do not realise( I believe they don’t even care) that the majority of awaken people don’t buy their false arguments about anything anymore.
It’s ok, as long as we blame the propagandees, not the propagandists– or worse, those who pay the propagandists.
No.1 is a straw man argument. Greenhouse gas emissions from humans or cattle are irrelevant to the climate. Climate change is a hoax to implement UN Agenda 21 – as is covid. The other points aren’t even worth commenting on.
Thank you, Richard. It’s the one flaw in the video. I suppose they wanted to make meat production palatable (pun intended) even to dupes of the global warming hoax.
Great and informative video. We have to come to terms with the fact that nearly everything we are being told about literally anything is prejudiced, false and not supported by evidence when you look closer. This goes for climate change, impact of eating meat, COVID19, etc…. it’s mostly disinfo-propaganda that shapes people’s view of the world.
The rich go out on hunts shooting game?!We the public are not allowed unless you are a gamekeeper and who gets the game?Yea your right not us.
Do you live in the US? I know it’s different elsewhere, but I grew up hunting and eating mostly deer with my dad in the southwestern US. For some big game and hunts in certain areas, it can be somewhat expensive. For example, elk tags in Colorado were a few hundred dollars last time we went. Some hunts are controlled by lotteries. Otherwise it is a pretty inexpensive way to get many months worth of food for a family. It also teaches you patience, a love for the outdoors and respect for land and animals. Where I’m from it was more associated with the poor than the rich. Where I live now in Utah, there are definitely people who do expensive hunts in places like Alaska and Africa, but they are not stereotypical hunters.
It’s in Britain.we have to have licenses to hunt or fish,Or we can do it the other way if you know what I mean.
I see. We also are supposed to hunt only with licenses/tags. They are mostly easy to obtain and inexpensive.
Hunting is an upperclass thing in the UK! Hard adjustment for an American to make
I’m Scottish and I think in right in saying that the majority of our game is exported – Scottish venison and salmon is mostly too expensive for locals, and ours lamb comes from New Zealand 😏
However poaching has a long and illustrious history and hasn’t gone away just because we can buy venison in shrink wrapped packages,the added benefit is that no licences or tags are required just guile and a willingness to break archaic laws (not that i would ever condone such misdeeds) and we do have quite an abundance of pest species worth eating however i will ask people to refrain from the custom in some of the southern US states of eating squirrel brains,they can carry a form of creuzfelt jakob disease so its a case of take your chances with a jab or two or decline squirrel brain paté or whatever culinary delight it can be mangled into.
everything tastes like chicken if you close your eyes
Steve Rinella (the ‘Meateater’ podcast and tv show guy) put out a cookbook a year or two ago with great recipes for unusual hunted foods such as beaver tail.
That is really strange for me to wrap my head around! I’m used to people being uncomfortable discussing hunting in some circles here because it is considered like a white trash thing to do.
Time for you to take an arrow from Robin Hood’s quiver, Annie, and go out there and harvest yourself one of the Queen’s Royal Deer! 😉
I wish I could I live in the back woods,We can go hunting on the sly but not a lot about Roe deer but not a lot of those they’re on the moors.I’m a forager too nuts,berry’s anything edible.
talking of reducing protein… the main reason for vegetarianism in the hindoo caste system.. thus weakening the chattel and stunting their growth… an old weapon used by all the hollow men ‘non-elites’, regardless of creed, race or geography…
here is a rather anaemic article from the BBC tackling the the ‘new covenant’ AKA the (not so great for most) reset..
it’s a good chuckle this one, one of their best…
note how many times the term conspiracy theory is bandied about, tacitly admitting it’s all true whilst focusing on un-social media ‘data’…somewhat like the vaccines being totally safe and 99% effective, obviously no-one has bothered to show them government ‘data’ which paints a somewhat different reality.. they really should be carthaged..
damage limitation? I think fair to assume..
The Great Reset is the most mind-bogglingly important event in the great order of things. Both Schwab and the BBC are trying to point this out to the perspicacious – whilst sedating/placating/comforting the insufficiently perspicacious.
yes.. I’ve commented on the fact that we are entering ‘a new age’, schwab has even referred to this transition as the new ‘covenant’…
no doubt dressed in his dracula robes with all the associated ‘occult’ references..
to those with ‘eyes to see’, they most certainly aren’t hiding it..
and whether the imbecile class believe in such things is irrelevant, as irrelevant as christianity was to teutonic pagans…
How many times does a Great Reset occur every Great Year?
If this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius, what age are we leaving?
How many ages are there in a Great Year?
How many ages are there in a so called glaciation cycle?
Off subject but Julian Assange is still in prison for reporting real news?Not a mass murderer (Bush)But an honest truth sayer.
Well mentioned Annie, he’s still rotting away and even witnesses for his defence eg Craig Murray are stopped from appearing at his hearings. They hope he’ll be forgotten about and will be quietly shipped over the pond while the “journalists” who should be supporting him look at their shoes. Shame on them all.
As well stated within the discuss –
‘the planet will save itself’. Nature has its
own vaccine to destroy a parasite called
homo sapiens. “Humanity” will not be a pen
point on geological time. No one will be waiting
in line to view our bones at the museum.
This other refute makes good points though –> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkMOQ9X76UU
What are they? (the good points)
There are 2 things we can do with food to help the planet:
I don’t think I’ve ever eaten British lamb,And I live in England?
Eat Raw Meat, read Aajonus Vonderplanitz
This spring there was a government decree for people to keep their chickens locked up in a cage because of the bird flu. Utterly ridiculous nonsense. While most people ignored the bullshit order some rule followers obeyed and their chickens stop producing many eggs. People need to rise up and lock up the covid/climate change scammer flock.
It will only take a decree from the spineless albino jellyfish that a bird flu is amongst us and private fowl rearing will overnight become illegal,same with ownership of pets (which i have my eye on as a source of protein in the coming food shortages) numerous attempts to seed the minds of the sleeping ones that pets are bad for the environment have already been undertaken,one swift edict and it will be a rehash of the great pet slaughter of ww2.
I really don’t understand which bit of ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ people struggle to understand
Thanks for the very perceptive observation that in 2021, in the overlord’s chattel-society, there are no debates or arguing one side or the other of any issue. There is only their one-way-broadcast facts. Any argument against is automatically “debunked”, “fact-checked”, tainted by backward ignorance, “crazy”, mentally-ill, or a superstition-conspiracy of some kind. This really true. It seems the bad-parent 1%’s children are no longer allowed to debate the validity of ANY issue. And to stop all debate, all opposition is cast as looney-tune. Spot on!!!
Abolish the fast food franchises, a simple way to deal with part of the problem. Abolish the soda pop = salt in RO water with even more sugar to mask the salt. Completely worthless products the lot of them.
Problem is removing this form or “feeding” the populace may pose concerns with the increasing disparity between affluence and non affluence when it comes to nutrition. In most cases I would argue that the fast food individuals eat there because its convenient and satisfies their lazy existence as a whole. Not because they can not afford to cook something they went to a small farm and purchased.
Its the same thing with almost all franchise restaurants. They are in the franchise business not the ‘restaurant” business. That said, the entire industry needs to rethink its self. Its pretty obvious who the morons are.
Any establishment that calls itself a proper restaurant, by proper I mean ingredient forward, updated cooking techniques and proper sourcing of ingredients from reputable sources such as local farmers, small farms and line fishermen and women, yet continues to insist that its staff and guests wear fascial covers is fake or at best run by imbeciles that have no business pretending to care about the realities of proper food ingredients. Its a lost cause.
These restauranteurs continue to feed garbage to the consumer which is in part the biggest problem of this equation. Educate the consumer – God help us on that one when the educator is as dumb.
Recently, CBC news praised a dimwit restauranteur whom professed that she was not allowing anyone to enter her restaurant unless they could prove vaccination. She said it was a matter of being educated. Educated in what exactly? Let’s see what’s on her menu? Shit, that’s what. Stuff anyone can make at home by opening a few cans and bags.
Is this the reality of this industry? I am rather harsh on this because I feel the industry requires leadership in times of fakery and its a problem when they can’t see it or worse do nothing about it. it makes a statement as to the fakery of their ingredients and cooking. It’s a farce what they are doing and its hypocritical on many levels.
Keep safe. Eat shit. This is their motto. Remove this from the equation and things will begin to improve. Stop supporting lousy restaurants and eateries that pretend.
On another note the NewZealand dairy industry has been targeted for damage to waterways and I feel there is merit to this.
NewZealand seems to be having some issues with farmland that has been converted to grazing pastures for livestock. The fertilizer run off has polluted their waterways (at least this is what is reported) so basically NewZealand has some serious issues to contend with. The dairy industry there seems to be an issue. Eliminating milk or meat from the diet is not going to solve these issues as growing infected and rejected vegetables would cause similar damages to the farmland.
What we need are smaller farms run by proper and real farmers …. the issue here is can everyone afford to purchase such ingredients? I think with a little help they can.
“Keep safe, eat shit” indeed. It fits perfectly with the control agenda and the dumbing down that is now endemic in our society, from their lowbrow TV output to the ludicrous ubiquitous signage that is everywhere around the south of England stating the bleeding obvious and treating us like kids.
Hello Berlin Beer Man: Damn straight. “Franchised” restaurants in my area are dropping like flies, and it’s a good sign dressed up as bad news. Food waste in restaurants has always been over the top. There are dumpsters of waste every day, and huge portions are often left on the plate. Most people can’t take the time to relax around a wholesome meal. They spend more time on their damn cell phones than they spend on enjoying food. Then they wonder why they don’t feel well.
Fast food restaurants have always been a disgrace. Close them all…
Watch ‘Idiocracy’ ;o)
You will be rationed within 5 years as to what you can purchase and what you can eat,all ably assisted by whatever bodily implanted pass they decide upon,the technology already exists in abundance,the grub farms are authorised in the UK ,the ersatz meat is well underway (quorn is already here) and if you survive the coming ‘great die off’ due to having availed yourself of your free ‘offer’ of vaccines that are not vaccines ,you will own nothing and be happy,prepare to surrender all your property and assets for the greater good of course and for your sacrifice you will be allowed to reside in a 20 minute city where all your needs will be met,but only if you are productive,if you are a useless eater (whether vegan or carnivore it matters none) expect your life span to be cut terminally short
Derek Chauvin will be sentenced 6/25/21 (this Friday) solstice + full moon,
A light sentence acquittal or early release due to time served on that day to cause more riots / uproar for sure. I hopium not
That was a brilliantly timed false flag. Opposition to the dystopia died with “Floyd”.
Totally OT, look at what the fact-checkers are denying (sorry if already posted):
Well, it is an obvious fake, even if some of the predictions come to pass.
It reminded me of a typical Bond film, where Dr Evil says “Prepare to die, Mr Bond, but first let me explain to you my entire plan in detail”.
Forks Over Knives, on the other hand, is a popular documentary based on the research from the China Study, that demonstrated that a plant-based diet is healthier than one higher on the food chain.
It is strange that the ruling elite is pushing an agenda that would downsize, maybe even destroy, the food distribution and production system.
Nevertheless, if I was trying to survive on my own, I would be growing potatoes, kale, and have chickens…. But I certainly would NOT try to grow cattle, slaughter them, and try to live that way!
Just think about it that way! If you had to feed yourself and you had 1 acre of land, what would you do with it?
Veganism would not downsize food distribution. A vegan diet demands a great deal of food processing in order to convert plant proteins that humans can’t digest into a form they can digest. It also, by Monbiot’s admission, favours large scale production and chemical pesticide use.
“A vegan diet demands a great deal of food processing in order to convert plant proteins that humans can’t digest into a form they can digest.”
What are your sources for this claim? There is a large and thriving whole-food plant-based health industry out there.
My family and I, vegans for almost 9 years, have not experienced any requirement for processed plant proteins, and neither have any of the vegans I know. We eat about 95% unprocessed (whole) food. Legumes, beans, nuts, grains and pulses are high in protein. I used cronometer.com to measure my protein intake for several months, and their software includes a breakdown of the amino acids that come with those proteins. All’s well with all of us; every nutritional base is covered. And I do calisthenics regularly and build muscle. At 55 I’m still very fit, and at an ideal weight.
Anything that favours large-scale production with attendant pesticides is obviously a negative, but doesn’t industrialised meat production demand that too? Their feed has to come from somewhere, and at scale it will be monoculture crops with attendant pesticide use, which bioaccumulates in the meat (I’ve been led to believe). To avoid pesticides and soil-damaging fertilisers, scaling down via localised permaculture solutions would be as feasible for vegan food chains as for vegetarian and omnivorous.
So for me the question is primarily ethical, but therefore necessarily also about the healthiness of the diet: If a vegan diet is sufficiently nutritious (it sure seems to be to me!), it then follows, surely, that killing animals is unnecessary, where access to affordable nuts, pulses, legumes etc. is given. That makes it an ethical question, in my view. If, on the other hand, vegan/vegetarian diets are unhealthy, then killing animals for food would be ethically sound, for obvious reasons.
I’m now going to watch the video…
(By way of disclosure, I unfollowed every vegan YouTuber I was following after they all started getting horribly preachy and blinkered re corona. I want nothing to do with the vegan movement any more. But the core arguments, plus my wholly positive experience with the vegan diet, means I am vegan still.)
I quite agree, even though I eat meat.
Plant-based food only requires a lot of processing if it is required to look and feel like meat. There are innumerable nutritious vegetarian (or vegan) dishes you can prepare from scratch.
So even if you choose to drop meat, you absolutely do not have to eat factory food, despite what the recent propaganda from Gates et al would like you to believe.
Why Monbiot claims that plant food would require large-scale production and chemicals is anybody’s guess.
Same here, Toby. Vegetarian for many years then vegan for the past four or five, but never anything processed. I had to start eating a lot more nuts and seeds when I stopped eating eggs and dairy for the fat content or I’d lose weight even eating huge meals with a lot of protein.
I also agree there’s nothing worse than a preachy vegan, covid-1984 or otherwise, it just works for me and I feel fit and healthy. Also inadvertently got rid of the stomach problems I’d had as a youth but never knew were related to my eating meat. It should be a personal choice and not subjected to corporate PR armies to distort the facts to maximise profits, which is what this latest drive appears to be all about.
soy products are some of the most highly processed food products on our grocers shelves.
Then buy organically-grown soy beans and prepare them yourself. Simple.
Well said Toby. Like October, I still eat a little meat, but I too endorse what you say: it’s perfectly easy to get a good complete diet as a vegetarian, or even a thoroughgoing vegan. The closer I get to eating nothing but plant-derived food, the healthier I feel.
As JMGreer pointed out recently, it’s diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks. Not everyone is constitutionally able to thrive on a pure vegan diet. But it sure helps to get close to it, for everyone.
I can recommend Dr. John McDougall’s high-plant-starch diet – with associated active lifestyle. It’s pretty strictly vegetable based for staple foods, as millions of people have lived effectively for a very long time, and it worked wonders for me. https://www.drmcdougall.com/
I just watched this interview with Sofia Smallstorm on glyphosate (aka Roundup) and the epidemic of joint failure (including among racehorses!). It may be of interest to you:
Unprocessed vegetable protein is far less accessible to the human gut than animal protein. Something like 50% availability as opposed to 90%. Soy isn’t just processed to make it look like meat, it’s processed to make it more digestible. And vegans also need to take vitamin supplements, right?
Whether or not a person chooses to eat meat it’s pretty obvious our bodies are designed to do so is my point.
What is your source for that claim about 50% bioavailability of vegetable protein? I’ve read and heard different claims. Is there any evidence that vegans who eat no processed foods are protein deficient? I know my family and I are not. Nowadays, scientific papers are almost impossible to trust, so it’s not easy to establish the validity of the claims made one way or the other. There are very healthy vegan athletes and body builders out there, but how many of them take no supplements? I don’t know. How many omnivorous athletes and body builders take no supplements? I don’t know. I’d guess very few: I suspect top athletes are typically reliant on ‘the latest science’ and rely on all manner of strange and exotic nutritional technologies.
Vegans don’t need to take supplements apart from b12, though apparently many vegans are healthy without taking any b12 supplementation. Again, which Science do we trust? Omnivores also need to take b12 supplementation, or take it unwittingly via the meat they eat – I read a couple of years ago in some newspaper article that over 90% of the planet’s b12 supplementation goes into livestock but can’t locate it right now.
So while it’s true that most humans get their b12 from eating animals and eggs (I’m actually ambivalent about eggs: I eat eggs (about one a week) from chicken types that are not bread to lay large numbers of eggs every day and are free to roam), b12 is also available for example from healthy, highly bio-diverse soil and thus unwashed vegetables. That’s where herbivorous and frugivorous animals get their b12 (from the tiny insects that come along with the soil). So b12 deficiency is a general problem caused by an overly hygienic world agricultural system. But how unhealthy is b12 supplementation? How many humans can be fed on free-range, grass-fed livestock? Are humans the most important animal on the planet?
All that said, my veganism is not about not killing, it’s about not killing unnecessarily, for pleasure only. I’m wholly unconvinced by any variant of “it’s not natural” arguments. Everything is within nature. There is thus no such thing as “unnatural”. Are our bodies “designed” to eat meat, as you assert? That’s controversial. Personally, I find the arguments and evidence that we are essentially herbivorous ( I think Dr McDougall calls us “starchivores”) more convincing. But I know people choose to believe one or the other thing and then cherry pick to suit.
So, do humans need to kill animals to be healthy? If yes, we should be bending our efforts to do so in a way that offers the maximum possible dignity to those living beings we kill en masse. For me, veganism requires this attitude. If we have to eat meat, then we do. But let’s do so with humility and compassion. Glorifying meat eating, making it macho, sexy, whatever, is undignified in my view. There is terrible suffering out there, daily, in the hundreds of millions and probably in the billions, all to feed a profit-driven industry that could not care less about animal welfare, or human welfare for that matter. I would like to see more focus on that aspect of this debate, and all its ramifications (see my questions a couple of paragraphs above). Veganism is popular because people care abut the living beings we share this planet with. That’s where I want the focus to be.
such an obvious point, the surprise is that you felt the need to make it…
Given your italics, it’s a first world question, surely?
Not really. Much of India is vegetarian/vegan; they have access to pulses, legumes, beans, etc. But I know that in The Philippines, for example, those foods are prohibitively expensive to the vast majority and meat is heavily subsidised. There, the poor simply cannot afford to be vegan or vegetarian. But this is a structural, not a biological issue, and thus solvable, should humanity, or the Filipinos in narrow example, choose to solve it.
But what about the argument that the video makes that removing animals from these agricultural ecosystem isn’t straightforward? Organic farming, which doesn’t introduce wildlife-destroying pesticides, herbicides and fungicides into the ecosystem, relies on animal fertilisers. It’s is not as simple as you make out, many argue. A2
I know that there are vegan permaculture farmers who don’t use animal faeces as fertiliser and report that they do well, but I don’t know of any studies comparing yields between the two methods. I also know that permaculture skills are such that desert can be greened (“Greening the desert” on YouTube), so grassland wouldn’t be very difficult. That said, my initial response to Sophie was really to inquire after sources regarding vegans needing processed protein to stay healthy; the claim goes against my direct experience and sources I have studied myself.
So we are now discussing two different arguments. The first is the claim that humans need to eat meat/dairy to be healthy, the second that farming needs animal fertiliser to meet human needs. I am fairly certain that the first claim is largely false, but lack evidence and experience pertaining to the second. However, the core issue for me is treating all living beings with dignity.
The devilishly difficult challenge facing veganism is what to do with the billions of farmed animals in the world should all humans everywhere go vegan. I’ve put it to famous online vegans and got radio silence. It seems to me that once we have bred animals that are adapted only to a domesticated or industrialised life we kind of get glued to them. Is it morally acceptable to breed living beings as private property / slaves? I don’t think so if we don’t need them as property. I prefer the idea of partnership, but this is legally challenging due to issues like personhood and moral culpability. And anyways, figuring out if we need them is extremely difficult. I see it rather like a bad marriage we can’t get out of without doing damage to both sides of the arrangement. But as society discusses it more and more, there’s the hope we get closer and closer to treating these, and all other creatures on earth, with as much respect and dignity as humanly possible. Factory farming is truly horrible and thus a very poor attempt at treating creatures we bred into existence respectfully.
Can we ‘partner’ with livestock such that they have full, healthy lives and we use their manure? Perhaps… Maybe they would need to be killed at some stage (dog food / cat food? leather goods?), if leaving them to die of old age proves unfeasible, but the criteria for doing so should not be how tasty their flesh or soft their skin at age 3 compared to 10, for example.
Just thinking out loud.
I have been a vegan for many years, most of my adult life. I don’t eat fake cheese, fake meat or fake processed food. I seem to be very healthy compared to friends and family. Most of my food I grow or pick in the wild. I do tend to buy and eat a lot of nuts. Yes, I’ll process (can) cukes, tomatoes, mushrooms and fruits but not much else. The protein only in meat or dairy is another myth brought to you by the pharmacide gov’t nutritionists. I eat what my body and mind like. My favorite foods are herbs, greens and wild mushrooms.
In my experience, vegans who eat fake meat and fake cheese tend to be unhealthy as these foods are unhealthy. Inevitably, they are what they eat, fake vegans.
I’m honestly wondering if different body types, blood types perhaps, work optimally on different diets.
If we’re honest we all know healthy people on very different diets. Some thrive on a vegan diet, some get quite ill on it.
Yes, the human body’s organs work in the same way. But if some of our chemistry differs (blood types), then it follows that nutrition, which is effectively chemistry, could too.
Just thinking out loud here.
I agree each body is different. My dad was very healthy, never got sick and ate a high protein diet, which he felt he neeeded, compared to the rest of the family. One thing my dad never ate was processed foods. I doubt that many body types do well on gmos and processed fake foods.
Yes, there is no universally applicable diet!
Wow Sophie, that could be nominated for “silly statement of the year”. I can only assume you are attempting to throw a spanner in the works and create divide/debate. Next you will asking “where will we get our protein from”?
Do some fundamental research on the amount of time animal foods stay in the stomach compared to fruit, veg, grains and legumes.
Could you please explain then how and why did we evolve to be able to digest meat? Takes millions of years to get there.
…is there a ‘why’ in the evolutionary process? Surely the ‘whys’ arise from the culture of the observer. The current state of our ‘evolution’ merely ‘is’. The old myth that ‘meat eating’ boosted the evolution of humans is no more relevant than fire and cooking makes vegetables more easily digested. Is the request for an explanation a rhetorical device or an admission that you cannot be bothered to investigate it youself?
Because vegan food wasn’t easily available and meat was. Not that complicated. My ancestors also lived in mud huts but that doesn’t mean I should feel obliged to do the same for ever more!
It doesn’t require an evolutionary adaptation to live in a Barratt home, though.
uh, I’m guessing you don’t know that ‘science’ says homos and chimps have been around some 6,000,000 years.
In the beginning, homos (and chimps) were pure leaf-eating herbivores. In fact, the only way to even begin to claim that homos/chimps were meat-eaters is to include insects, which to a reasonable person don’t really count. The queerest thing of all is that Homo allegedly started eating grasshoppers when living on the grasslands of Africa circa 3-4 mya.
Then, as the forests started fading (people think around 2.8 mya),
due to glaciation, diets naturally shifted (as they always will to what’s available), and homo started scavenging (alleged experts opine that early Homo got the worst bits, and they needed ‘tools’ to crack open
Then, around 600,000 years ago, homo developed the so-called thrusting spear and started ‘hunting.’ That’s why it’s so funny the vast majority of humanoids think early Homo was a ‘hunter-gatherer,’ when he was more forager-scavenger than anything for millions upon millions of years. Naturally, killing another living creature was highly controversial, taboo, if not violently resisted and/or opposed.
Then, nobody knows for sure, I even forget the experts’ dates,
around 2-400,000 years ago, homo started cooking meat.
So, now you understand how Homo ‘evolved to digest meat,’
mind you digest is quite a slippery word to begin with.
Chimps hunt and eat meat occasionally.
mostly agree, but I like cows, would keep a milch coo. They are effective soil turners too, so a few might do. Otherwise spot on, get a long dog too ; )
Grow veggies and keep chickens.