fresh wrote:

<<<can you find any negative quality or action in hitler, John?>>>

Yes.

<<<are you really that blind?

No.

<<<was he the head of a country waging war?>>>

GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR

"I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right." -British Attorney General, March 16th, 1984, Senior Nuremburg Prosecutor

"The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war." -Sir. Basil Liddell Hart

"I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them." -Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.

"Winston Churchill agrees: "We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted." -Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.

Fourteen Days That Saved the World


New Evidence Revealed: Rudolf Hess Brought Adolf Hitler's Peace Offer to Great Britain in 1941

Churchill ordered the peace offer from Hitler suppressed and had Hess imprisoned in order to avoid undermining his own political position in England. Churchill deliberately chose to continue the war unnecessarily and for the sole purpose of serving his own personal political gain. Hess was murdered in prison in order to conceal British guilt in the fomentation of the war.


10 Reasons why Hitler was one of the Good Guys





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2015 09:36PM by John Rose.

Hitler did EXACTLY what he was paid to do. It is so obvious: he started a big war, he killed many people and then he dissapeared. What good did he bring to Germany? To the world?

In former Yugoslavia, for each killed German Hitler ordered 100 people to be killed in retaliation (it was posted everywhere in the country during the war). At one occassion, his soldiers killed every student of a local school, together with their teachers. The soldiers were neat, clean, German army soldiers. Killing children taken out of school. This stuff is heavily documented, with photo's, names, documents. His soldiers killed children. Good man?

How can people be so blind?

Hey rab,

Did you read my post above?

GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR

"I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right." -British Attorney General, March 16th, 1984, Senior Nuremburg Prosecutor

"The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war." -Sir. Basil Liddell Hart

"I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them." -Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.

"Winston Churchill agrees: "We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted." -Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.

Fourteen Days That Saved the World


New Evidence Revealed: Rudolf Hess Brought Adolf Hitler's Peace Offer to Great Britain in 1941

Churchill ordered the peace offer from Hitler suppressed and had Hess imprisoned in order to avoid undermining his own political position in England. Churchill deliberately chose to continue the war unnecessarily and for the sole purpose of serving his own personal political gain. Hess was murdered in prison in order to conceal British guilt in the fomentation of the war.


10 Reasons why Hitler was one of the Good Guys

Here's something to contemplate:

Lavrenti Beria, was an infamous butcher. He hid his crimes by blaming them on the Nazis.

Beria became a dreadful executioner during the Second World War, since he was able to conceal his crimes as the work of the Nazis.

most of them (presumably 20 million) were killed by order of Lavrenti Beria. All those deaths were blamed on the Germans.

it was actually Stalin who planned to attack Hitler, and Germany was therefore forced to a pre-emptive attack.

Hermes sneers at Human Ignorance, because we still cannot see through the Deceptions of Freemasonry and we continue to believe in their projects.


[www.youtube.com]
In the Shadow of Hermes - Juri Lina (Full Length) Genocide of 65 Million
1:59:26 Minute Video

Published on Sep 7, 2012

Based on the widely censored book, "Under the Sign of the Scorpion" by Juri Lina, available as a free PDF download.
[zioncrimefactory.com]-...

Also download the brand new e-book on how Zionists have destroyed western civilization over the past 100 years especially. The free 121 page E-book is available here...

Select "save file" when downloading.
PDF file: [www.mediafire.com]
MS Word file: [www.mediafire.com]

JR’s Notes:

0:13 MM
“History would be something extraordinary, if only it were true.” -Leo Tolstoy

1:39:02 MM
In Estonia, suffering in a communist hell, the invading Germans were enthusiastically greeted as liberators. [56 seconds of cheering Estonians] The Germans permitted the Estonians to keep their national flag. During the Second World War, the NKVD’s head, Lavrenti Beria, was an infamous butcher. He hid his crimes by blaming them on the Nazis. He sent 20 million people to slave labor camps.

In the German Camps, things were different. Footage from German Camps - [1:41:00-1:41:54]

After Germany’s defeat by the USA, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, new territories in the Eastern Europe were handed over to the Soviet Union by the Western Powers. In 1946, the Soviet Union started to tempt back its refugees, foremost from France. Tens of thousands of Immigrants believed the propaganda and hoped the communists had become more humane. Their awakening was brutal. They have no idea that the Soviet Union had great need for new slaves. The younger ones were to be sent to the slave labor camps, while the older ones were shot at once. Families were separated. This was done in the harbor of Odessa. Foreign wives had their passports confiscated. Millions of slaves were needed. New slave camps for foreigners were founded with the tacit consent of the Western leaders. Under a decree signed by Lenin in 1919 (on which was written “Publication prohibited!”) all foreigner “of no value” were to be sent to concentration camps. 1:43:38 MM

1:58:05 MM
Hermes sneers at Human Ignorance, because we still cannot see through the Deceptions of Freemasonry and we continue to believe in their projects.

So do not believe everything these false power-mongers tell you! Think for yourself and the secrets of the world will begin to open before you! Even the secret power of the Freemasons can be broken. The Illuminati cannot stand the Light of Truth and seek to avoid it, just as the mole hides from the sun. The dark forces will inevitably fail and light will one more reach the souls of men. Those of ignore the 300 million victims of Communism share the moral responsibility.

The End. 1:59:16 MM
[www.youtube.com]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JR Insert from “Under The Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina (pdf)” file… Pages 305-311
Beria's Contribution

Stalin became extremely interested in the UFO phenomenon. Beria was asked to collect information about that enigma. Stalin was also interested in other mysterious subjects. He was very pleased when, before the Second World War, Hitler's Jewish astrologer and seer Wolf Messing came over to Russia and helped Stalin in every way. He was even able to predict that Hitler would be defeated in May 1945.

Stalin began to trust Beria, since Beria had saved him from an attempt on his life by lake Ritsa in Abkhazia. Stalin and Kaganovich had Yezhov executed through Beria on the 1st of April 1940, by way of an April fool's joke. Yezhov had "punished citizens without reason". (Everything according to the periodical Ogonyok, February 1988.)

The first thing Lavrenti Beria did was to soften the regime in the prison camps. The torture ceased. At the same time, he immediately began executing the old Chekists. He wanted new men who would compete with each other in trying to imprison or execute as many people as possible. General Leonid Reikhman became one of his most important Chekists.

Beria hated children. For that reason he wanted as many children as possible sent into heavy slave labour. In October 1940 his Chekists managed to imprison up to a million children between 14 and 17 years of age. NKVD units had kidnapped those children in various Russian cities and immediately herded them like cattle to prison camps where most of them died from starvation and exhaustion. From 1943, the Chekists managed to collect two million children per year.

Beria became a dreadful executioner during the Second World War, since he was able to conceal his crimes as the work of the Nazis. He had nearly 20 million people captured and sent to slave camps. According to the latest estimates, the Soviet Union lost at least 32 million, possibly 45 million, citizens during the Second World War. The historian Nikolai Tolstoy claims that most of them (presumably 20 million) were killed by order of Lavrenti Beria. All those deaths were blamed on the Germans. During the war, Beria had founded a fearsome terror organization, Smersh ("Death to the spies!", which murdered a vast number of people. Those executioners were so proud of their work that they had themselves filmed while in action. The director Stanislav Govorukhin showed a few such film sequences in his "The Russia We Lost", where Smersh hanged "enemies of the people" and cheerfully applauded their crime. Many people ended up in special camps called ChSIR. Those were intended for the families of traitors to the fatherland. All prisoners of war were also regarded as traitors. Millions were captured in the years 1941-42. Many of them starved to death since Lazar Kaganovich and Lavrenti Beria, in Stalin's name, forbade the Red Cross to bring the prisoners food. Oddly enough, the Red Cross complied, and still more people died.

Stalin, Kaganovich and Beria took care to destroy all the food stores before the German siege of Leningrad - they wanted to destroy all the awkward witnesses to the historic events in that city. Ludmila Grunberg, who lived in Leningrad at the time, confirmed this.

Beria was made marshal of the Soviet Union for his cruel terror during the war. Semyon Ignatiev was named the new chief of the NKVD. Beria was made chairman of the Atomic Commission in 1946. He still held a lot of power as the people's commissary for internal affairs and continued his terror campaign also after the war. He proved himself to be a thousand times worse than Yagoda and Yezhov together.

During the campaigns against "counter-revolutionaries and for the realisation of the land reform 1949-52" at least five million people, according to conservative estimates, were executed. (Svenska Dagbladet, 27th November 1988.) Kaganovich and Beria were responsible for those mass murders.

The history of the Second World War has also begun to be revised in Russia now. The defected Russian intelligence officer Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun) revealed in his books "The Ice-Breaker" (Moscow, 1992) and "M Day" (Moscow, 1994) that it was actually Stalin who planned to attack Hitler, and Germany was therefore forced to a pre-emptive attack.

During the last weeks of the war, the Jewish journalist Ilya Ehrenburg encouraged the Soviet soldiers to rape the enemy's women in hundreds of press releases. "Kill them! Nobody in Germany is innocent. Neither the living nor the unborn. Heed the words of comrade Stalin and crush the Fascist beast in its cave! Break down the racial pride of the German woman! Take her as your legitimate spoils of war! Kill them, you brave soldiers of the victorious Red Army!"

His exhortation was followed. The Red Army, according to TV Rapport (Sweden, 8th of January 1994), raped two million German women (180,000 died as a result). Gang rapes of German women took place. 300,000 children, many of whom died from malnutrition, were born as a result.

Lavrenti Beria constantly abused his power, forcing women who took his fancy to sleep with him. Police cars were used to kidnap pretty girls who were brought to Beria. He raped them, following which they were shot and buried in the garden of his little private palace. Skeletons of young women were found in this garden in March 1993. {Dagens Nyheter, 6th of April 1993.) Beria also kidnapped, sexually exploited and killed young boys.

Ordzhonikidze had warned Stalin about the fact that Beria had been the agent of the Musavatists in Baku between 1918 and 1920. The British controlled the Musavatists' intelligence. In 1919 Beria began working for the British. Stalin did not care about those accusations, since Beria had later become a double agent for the NKVD. Instead, everyone who dared mention this subject vanished mysteriously. That was why Grigori Kaminsky, people's commissary for public health, was executed. Some historians assert that Beria was Stalin's homosexual lover.

Stalin had also been an agent of the tsarist police, the Okhrana, after he had lost his job as assistant meteorologist in Tiflis (now Tbilisi). Stalin had written many reports to the Okhrana's chief, Vissarionov. In 1906 he was arrested together with other Bolsheviks, but was released a few hours later. But when Stalin wanted to get rid of his fellow agent Roman Malinowski, he was sent to Siberia. Malinowski was lured to Soviet Russia in November 1918, where he was executed by order of Lenin. Stalin, Kaganovich and Beria had 25 700 Polish citizens executed in April 1940. The murder of more than 4000 Polish officers (including many of Jewish blood) in Katyn was brought to light by the Germans. It was Ivan Krivozhertsev who informed the Germans about the mass graves in the Katyn forest. No one wanted to listen to the Nazis' claim that it had been the work of the Bolsheviks, since the Soviet Union had blamed the Germans.

It was only on the 14th of October 1992 that a copy of the decision signed by Stalin and passed by Molotov, Kaganovich, Kalinin and others, was handed over to the Polish President Lech Walesa by the Russian government. It was not really so strange that Jewish Chekists had also executed Jewish officers (including Abram Engel, Samuel Rosen, Isaak Gutman, Isaak Feinkel and others) who had served in the Polish army. After all, the Old Testament states that Yahweh is equally merciless against his own chosen people (Joshua 24:19). They were regarded as traitors!

The President of the United States of America Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister Anthony Eden, prohibited all publicity about this mass murder. Roosevelt officially asserted that the events in Katyn were a German plot. Winston Churchill warned his ministers: "The whole subject must be avoided!" At the same time, he assured Stalin that he would do all he could to silence the Polish exile newspapers in London. Voice of America was not, even in the 1970s, allowed to relate that the Bolsheviks had killed the Polish officers. Hans Holzapfel, the Jewish chief of the European section, was responsible for the censorship.

It is now known exactly what happened. The mass murders began in April 1940. The Polish officers, wearing winter uniforms, were brought in small groups - 30-40 at a time - to the execution site. They were then shot in the neck, one at a time, whilst standing by the edge of the mass grave. The NKVD continued working every day for nearly six weeks. A total of 4143 officer's bodies were found. 4421 people were killed in the Katyn forest, according to the documents. All the identified bodies proved to be former prisoners from Kozielsk. The prisoners who had been incarcerated in the Starobielsk (near Kharkov) and Ostashkov (near Kalinin) camps were murdered elsewhere. The latter amounted to 10 131 (3820 + 6311) people. Another 7305 Polish citizens were murdered in Byelorussia and the Ukraine. The pertaining documents were marked: "Must never be opened!"

Kaganovich founded actual slave camps, where the inmates worked in chains. Of the most important Jewish camp commanders (Aaron Soltz, Naftali Frenkel - a Turkish Jew -, Yakov Berman, Sergei Zhuk, Yakov Rapoport, Nakhimson, Yakov Moroz, Abramson, Pliner, Matvei Berman, Samuil Kogan, Samuil Firin, Biskon, Finkelstein, Serpukhovsky). Lazar Kogan was picked out as insufficiently effective. He was executed in 1938 and replaced by another Jew.

Kaganovich made an important contribution to the founding of the state of Israel. Moscow stated in the beginning of May 1947 that Palestine should be divided into an Arabic and a Jewish state. Meanwhile, Zionist Jews marched into Palestine singing the "Internationale". At a later point, the perfect astrological time for the birth of the new state was worked out. Astrologically, it would favour both the leadership and the subjects. Therefore, the state of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948 at 4:37 in the afternoon. The UN General Assembly, however, had already made the decision giving this project the green light, on the 29th of September 1947. The Zionists, led by the first president of Israel, Chaim Weizman (who came from Poland), knew that the best available weapons came from Czechoslovakia, but the right-wing government of that country refused to sell anything to the Jews. So Stalin organised a Communist coup in Prague (led by Klement Gottwald) in February 1948 and in the summer of 1948, half a year after the coup, Western European (including Swedish) airmen began secretly smuggling goods from Communist Czechoslovakia to the new state of Israel.

It was David Ben-Gurion who took the initiative for the weapons deals. Stalin and Kaganovich had seen to it that all those weapon deliveries were effected by an American airline company. American instructors in a secret camp outside Prague trained Israeli pilots. (Dagens Nyheter, 23rd of December 1990, "Svenskar hjalpte Stalin" / "Swedes Helped Stalin" by Andcrs Persson.)

All those weapons were produced in 1944-45 for Hitler's Nazi Germany and were intended for anti-British Arabs. The ammunition later used against the Arabs was marked both with swastikas and with Arabic letters. Even Issaac Deutscher admitted that Stalin sent both financial and efficient material aid to the Jews in Palestine. ("The Un-Jewish Jew", Stockholm, 1969, p.99. )

Stalin began fighting against the Zionist leaders in 1949. His psychological disturbances had become worse. That was the reason why he began the campaign against the "Cosmopolites" in November. He thought it was time to begin persecuting the Jews and reviling the Zionists. Stalin had the Jewish author Samuil Persov arrested on the 18th of January 1949 and executed on the 23rd of November 1950. Samuil Gordon met the same fate when he was executed on the 21st of July 1951.

Stalin began persecuting all kinds of Jewish cultural workers in August 1952. On the 12th of August 1952, 24 Jewish cultural workers (including Yiddish language authors) were arrested and 23 of them were executed. On the same evening, another 217 Jewish poets and prosaists, 108 actors, 87 artists and 19 musicians also vanished without trace. The authors David Bergelson, Fefer Itsik and David Hofstein were among those murdered. Then Stalin began cleaning out the Jewish elements from the government apparatus, not just in the Soviet Union but also in its satellite states. The Prague trial against Rudolf Slanski (actually Salzmann), Vlado Clementi and others was much discussed.
311

The Murder of Stalin
End of JR Insert from “Under The Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina (pdf)” file.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2015 10:53PM by John Rose.

I love his voice. I think he is talking about Sugar and not fruit.

Hey We love Brian Clement.

Are we talking about Hitler. YOU GUYS MUST WATCH WW2 IN hd on Netflix, it looks like footage from today how they took old footage and made it HDR..





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2015 11:22PM by coconutcream.

Notice how John did NOT answer these two questions:

"do you think it's possible to consider that what you think is truth is simply your subjective opinion?"

"but the desire of those who profit from the present evil practices and the means of carrying them on, to continue to reap rich financial harvests from pandering to the many harmful practices of the present conventional way of life". What evil practices?"

John's EGO is why he cannot fathom being wrong about the whole Hitler debacle. He's put too much time, energy, and emotion into it to admit that he could possibly be wrong and that realization doesn't serve his ego well, so he chooses to ignore it and accuses everyone of not being able to "connect the dots". I'm not even denying that Hitler could've been a good guy but I do not believe everything revolves around this so-called "Hitler test".


JR 3/10/15 1:06 PM - "as I would anyone else who is so pathetic to be unkind"
JR 3/10/15 1:45 PM - "MY GOD, AM I THE ONLY ONE WITH A BRAIN ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!"

Edit: Can you VERIFY any quotes, YouTube information, or anything else in your files?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2015 11:41PM by jtprindl.

John Rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> MY GOD, AM I THE ONLY ONE WITH A BRAIN ON THIS
> WEBSITE?!?!?!
>
> Are none of you guys capable of putting 2 + 2
> together?


That's very offensive to people. WTF is wrong with you, John? You off your rocker?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2015 05:55PM by Anon 102.

<<<That's very offensive to people. WTF is wrong with you, John? You off your rocker?>>>

No, I am NOT off my rocker and there is nothing wrong with me.

If you look at what I posted, you will see that I am NOT offending anyone, except for those who take things out of context.

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

...

MY GOD, AM I THE ONLY ONE WITH A BRAIN ON THIS WEBSITE?!?!?!

Are none of you guys capable of putting 2 + 2 together?

I know that I'm NOT the only one, but where is my support?!?!?!

...

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

I'm not singling anyone out, this is across the board, myself included. I am personally worried about the mental health of the vegan community in general. Is it that it attracts fringe people, or does being vegan/sprout/raw/fruitarian bring out the nuttiness/anger in people?

Quote

I am personally worried about the mental health of the vegan community in general. Is it that it attracts fringe people, or does being vegan/sprout/raw/fruitarian bring out the nuttiness/anger in people?

Both points seem to be true, but the one to be concerned about is #2. Evidence has been posted on this site before showing how poorly done vegan diets, especially raw ones, can contribute to mental instability.

NuNativs wrote:
I'm not singling anyone out, this is across the board, myself included. I am personally worried about the mental health of the vegan community in general. Is it that it attracts fringe people, or does being vegan/sprout/raw/fruitarian bring out the nuttiness/anger in people?

Tai:
Nunativs, somewhere I read you are not vegetarian, albeit you eat a high percentage of raw vegan. So perhaps you are suspicious of vegans. Because of a post on this forum, I was directed to Tom Billings website yesterday and I saw a lot of the damning evidence against raw/veganism, including brain issues related to B-12. I am certainly not criticizing you. You are responsible for you, and no one else is.

When I think of successful veganism, I think of spiritual cultivators, like the true vegan shaolin monks. Nunativs, spiritual cultivation is the key to locks in the human body. Having the du mai and ren mai (amongst the other meridians) free flowing is amazing. It puts one in a whole new ballgame. Spiritual cultivators pay attention to mind and heart cultivation and obtain higher level health. When a person is trying to purify their energy field, they pay attention to karma and would never kill an animal. They might eat meat, if they were starving, but they would never intentionally harm an animal. I only mention the shaolin monks because everyone knows who they are. But there are other people like them, who live normal lives and don't separate themselves from society, which I know is a big deal to you.

There are many kinds of vegans on the planet and they cannot be lumped together. The motive for Bill Clinton to go vegan to save his life is different from one whose motive is ahimsa.

So, to answer your question, those who embrace ahimsa and the vegan diet (and who care about all sentient beings) are calmed and their loving kindness is awakened through the vegan diet...not the reverse.

What I find though is that sometimes people will choose to get lost in a hobby or an interest or even a diet and ignore their glaring character omissions that they should cultivate away.

Yes, the vegan raw vegan image carries a lot of baggage due to some people tarnishing the image and making raw vegans look agressive unbalanced people. And now the legal troubles and bad press of some raw leaders are making the raw vegan image even worse because gurus are seen as conmen, and raw vegans are being made to be deluded about the health benefits of the diets.

When l first went online to check out other raw vegans I was shocked. I expected peace loving balanced people, but straight away l saw lots of ratty behaviour. Talk about a let down, but it woke me up.

Naturally l am not signalling individuals out, the observation can easily be felt everywhere. It is a thorn in the raw movement. I am only here because l want to get the word out about sprouts because they are a very misunderstood food, but l am also here to learn some stuff and share some other stuff. I would prefer to stay offline, but now is not the time.

www.thesproutarian.com

<<<...I was directed to Tom Billings website yesterday...>>>

Tai,

Before you waste too much time on tom's website, you need to read my File Preview Preview on tom:

…File Preview…
• Tom doesn't seem to post all too often, but when he does, at least back since the summer (or earlier) he's mostly trying to discredit JR/John Rose and make him look foolish and mean. I read one of Tom's posts before I ever read any of JR/John's, and in it Tom was saying how JR always attacks etc. So I did a search on all posts by JR back through the summer. There were alot of posts by Jeff N, Tom, and JR. I expected to read JR's posts and see some pretty hateful stuff, however, I didn't find that at all. All I noticed was that JR was debating that 100% raw is the best way to go. On the other hand, when I read Tom's, they ironically sounded very attacking towards JR. After all the messages I've read by Tom from summer until now, I get the feeling that Tom feels extremely threatened by JR/John and puts most of his energy into making him look bad. I've also gotten the feeling that Tom didn't do very well on the 100% raw food diet, therefore, he wants to discredit that it is possible for anyone to do well on a diet of 100% raw foods, even though there are many people who've been doing it for years and enjoy extremely good health (including JR/John). Maybe he's afraid of feeling like a failure, so he has to prove that it's not possible for anyone to do. I believe it could be possible that some people do better on less than 100% raw foods, but I also believe some do not go about it right, therefore they don't succeed. I don't know what category Tom fits into.
• Wow, y’all have played this song and dance way too long. You guys start off by attacking 100% raw fooders and then when they reply, you claim that raw fooders are angry and dogmatic. I have posted over 100,000 words since I've been here back in May 2000, and I challenge anyone to find one negative post. In all honesty, I've had some very rude responses to me and not once have I responded back in the same manner. I received some emails from some who commented on this very topic back in August 2000. I won't post their names, but I think others might like to read what they wrote: Email #1: "These guys have 3 basic stategies, one is to say that raw food doesn't work long term with nothing backing it up. two they pretend to be another person and make a fake story of how they were on all raw and it didn't work have gone back to cooked and everything is better example - long plays post. They say that raw fooders have mental problems and are filled with anger. They insult people with things like raw fooders all eat cooked food in secret trying to get you to react in anger so they can lay claim to the statement that raw fooders are angry and dogmatic. These guys thrive on hate and making others angry. Did you see any of the posts by onus on the dg list all of them got removed so action there is being taken. So my plan of action is to talk about raw food sucssess based on my experience and to not mention anything about jn or tb or even cooked food. Just promote all raw by its many benifits especialy what its done for you and say it without anger. Then all they can do if they dare is to call you a liar. These guys cant handle any sucsess."
• ...the beyondveg.com site...This site is run by a very confused individual, who, in addition to not being able to support his beliefs with facts or logic when challenged, and who uses ad hominem attacks when in that position, also claims to be able to read other people's minds through his modem. No doubt, he maintains that level of credibility and intellectual integrity on the site.
He also stole the title, Beyond Vegetarianism, from my article of the same name that predated his site by almost a decade.
• Yes Ron, I know about beyondveg.com and have read the info, and they are off the mark. The authors of beyondveg.com mean well, yet they fell into the trap of eating way too much sweet fruit WHICH IS UNBALANCED FOR MOST unless you constantly burn it off as is the case with professional athletes.
• Rex tried to explain to Tom Billings that his failure with a fruitarian diet was largely due to his failure to obtain high brix qualtiy produce. Rex was eventually removed from Billing's list.
• Basic errors in logic and philosophy are dealt with in the first section and in the second section, an in-depth analysis of some of the more complex issues is presented.
• Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
• Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific?
• Countless of the claims of Beyond Veg are unsupported by scientific evidence, they are solely the often false and bizarre, beliefs of the authors.
• Variation is the normal in nature, and what is common or rare is irrelevant in establishing the correct diet of an individual species.
• As any PR hack knows, the best way of presenting your case in a positive light is to omit any contradicting facts. (see the second section for other major omissions)
• The problem I have with Tom Billings site, is that he personally had bad experiences with HIS version of a raw vegan diet and then implies that all raw vegan diets must be bad.
• Hmm, if taurine was the explanation for the cat study, then I guess you can conclude dwarf white beans need taurine to become pole beans again. William Albrecht thought it was tryptophane. I guess beyondveg knows more about soil fertility than William Albrecht. At least the Pottenger dwarf bean study (a part of the Pottenger cat study) shows that even cat dung used as fertilizer varies in quality according to what the cat ate.
• I would like to inform everyone intersested in my recent interaction with Tom Billings of beyondveg.com. I e-mailed him with some serious remarks about their web site and he answered me with the most rude and insulting comments I have ever experienced.
• Tom Billings even went so far as to put some information from cattle ranchers on the web site about the environmental consequences of eating meat. We can only guess how objective that will be! Obviously beyondveg.com is only concerned with bashing the raw food vegan world!!!!
• There is some useful information on that site, but it's definately slanted. I think that if you want to figure out how to successfully eat a raw food diet, you should seek out those that have been able to do it successfully rather than those who have failed. If you're looking for reasons that a 100% raw food diet is not viable, you're going to find them. I was in that mind set for quite awhile - looking for all the reasons why I shouldn't do 100% raw food even though I knew in my heart and soul it was the right thing for me. And, as long as I was in that space, it was absolutely impossible for me to stick with raw food. My intellectual self was bogged down with all the conflicting information that was available. Any data or information can be slanted to prove the point of the person who is presenting this information. My "red flag" would be if any person or entity was not open to considering other viewpoints, opinions or experiences. There's just as many or more people that have had no problems with a long-term, 100% raw food diet. Let's hear from these people.
• The problem I have with beyondveg is that the site doesn't distinguish between scientific fact and speculation. …The problem with Tom is that he regards everything on his web site as an absolute truth. He is to unthoughtful to realise that a large part of the views posted on beyondveg are speculation instead of scientific fact. This is what I experienced in his interaction with me. He cotinuously referred to remarks from me with "that is already debunked on beyondveg". … The discussion was hopelessly steered in the wrong direction because of attitude problems. This is one of my main concerns with scientists: they come up with valid information, but when they start speculating, they don't indicate that it is speculation, but present it as hard scientific facts.
• I read up on Tom Billing's history, by the way, and it is great information on why not to eat only fruit for 2 years straight, eating disorders and similar topics. Just because he failed at being all raw dosen't mean that it can't be done. I'm glad I've got his stuff to read so I can avoid making his mistakes.
• ...beyondveg is presenting information as scientific fact while it is speculation. I can come up with just as good scientific speculation in favor of raw food vegan.
• …since beyondveg is quoted very often on this board and I think it is extremely important to know that a lot of the information on beyondveg is based on speculation and not on proof, although they like to present it that way.
• Quite a few people seem to like to bash 100% raw but I've yet to hear any good reasons why and I am open to logic. It seems to me that this is their personal addiction being directed onto others. I've sifted throught the Beyond veg website and all I've found is good examples about how not to be a raw foodest (like Tom Billings eating nothing but fruit for 2 years straight) given by people with some serious eating disorders.
• Yeah, he saw the negative effects of an unbalanced diet, period. Have you read Tom Billings's personal story? Its pretty obvious that he went about it in an unbalanced way, probably not knowing any better at the time. It’s nice to have it as an example of an unbalanced raw diet but then again most of the current literature on the subject would tell you that eating nothing but fruit for 2 years straight with binges on cooked food is not balanced and can cause problems.
• No one may have said that raw fooders are the ONLY ones who display food-obsessive behavior, but what is Billings trying to imply when he likens raw fooders to anorexics. He states, "Here the point is the obsessive attitude toward food common to the anorexic and the rawfooder."
• He comes across as if raw fooders are abnormally obsessed with food, as if SAD eaters are not just as obsessed. Almost everyone I know is in some way "obsessed" with food. Let's face it, food is a huge part of our lives, and affects our health more than any other single factor, in my opinion.
• And comparing raw fooders to anorexics - the guy is insulting. Not to mention, Billings logic is extremely flawed, and when someone calls him on it, he is a total jerk.
• why is Billings making such a big deal of these things, because when he does, he makes it seem as though these problems are unique to raw fooders, which they clearly are not.
• Billings has persistently failed to support his many claims with any acceptable facts and figures, and on the occasions when he does, he picks only the information that supports his position, and adds his own interpretations that are not the opinions of the authorities he cites. When faced with authoritative information that counters his party line, his usual reply consists of insults or evasion, and where possible collusion with the moderator to have the dissidents removed from the debate. This is usually followed up with a revisionist account of events, branding his detractors as "hateful", "extremists", or better still his almost oxymoronic "dietary racists" label (one can choose diet, but not race).
• If Billings wishes us to believe that his ill fated fruitarian exploits are due, not to a severe failing in agronomy, but intrinsically to a fruit diet, then he must firstly demonstrate with figures and logs, the nutrient value of his fruits, the fertilizers applied, cultivars selected, soil pH and mineral composition, plus amounts eaten daily, were all correct and favourable, and still he failed to thrive. If indeed he really did eat the best quality produce, and failed to thrive, only then would his claims be supported. In any case, humans just are not really a tree fruit eating species. We evolved living on the ground, a zone more in line with a berry and legume diet, possibly with the addition of some low growing edible vegetation, eaten with insects and all!? We certainly did not evolve on commercial fruits, all of which only arose over the last 3000 years, along with the steadily worsening agricultural farce.
• I suspect that Billings understands horticulture as little as he understands ethical debate, and the scientific principals - which is not much, if at all.
• Again, Tom Billings shows us how much of a scientist he is. I truly hope that people who are posting stuff of Beyond Veg on this board, first do a little research to find out how much information has already been written on this board clearly proving the total lack of common sense and scientific integrity in Tom Billings.
• I've read all of Tom Billing's stuff and it is a good reference on what not to do…
• Next to the arrogant attitude of Tom Billings shown in my previous point, he has shown to me and John Rose and probably many others, that he is extremely aggressive and unreasonable in his communications.
• I laugh at the suggestion that the viewpoints on that website are "balanced" and "scientific". The man has an axe to grind, and he makes use of all of the double standards and subtle techniques (conscious or not) of interpreting studies to support foregone conclusions...most of what he has to say consists of attacking the credibility (though not always by name) of well known raw foodists.
• Tom billings failed on the raw diet for any number of reasons, and so he concludes that there is something wrong with the diet, instead of concluding that his own actions were at fault. It is easy to bash rawfoodism because it is a difficult diet to perfect and the detoxification process can make it appear as though the diet is actually harming people. If a person cant do something, the first reaction is to say it cant be done, but that is not a valid conclusion. Obviously tom billings has emotional issues that interfere with his judgement. He does raise relevant issues however, and the main one he raises is that deficiencies can develop if one is not careful. I agree with him on that point.
• Billings has long been viewed as an emotional basketcase by many of us here!
• I call him a basketcase based on past threads on this board where people have posted emails that he sent to them in response to comments or questions about his website. He basically bashed them and threw tantrums without attempting to have an intelligent discussion on the topics.
• …if you can weed through the psycho babble you will find that there is no content to Billings' raw foodism bashing.
• There is no rational, scientifically-credible thinking presented in this article, or on beyondveg in general, just pseudoscientific, anti-vegetarian/vegan propaganda, apparently written by similarly "failed" vegetarians/vegans, the purpose of which is to take the responsibility for "failures" from the errors or misadventures of the "failed" individual and pin it on a specific meaningless philosophy, while promoting yet other unsupportable and meaningless philosophies.
• Tom Billing's spreads fear by exploiting ignorance; if you side with him, then you are either in league with his motives, or are a victim of it yourself.
•
•
…End of File Preview…

By the way, I've been wondering why tom doesn't visit here anymore and I can't help but wonder if he does and he just uses a different user name.

I wonder - is there anyone here who fits his description?

Tom does read this forum and keep his eye on the raw food scene, and he does see the living food diet as the best type of raw vegan diet. He is not a bitter person, he is far too busy to be bitter about the raw food scene, he does have a life outside of raw foods, and a very busy one at that. He does speak well of some raw food leaders and their successes.

I am curious as to who wrote this babble you quoted in your file?

Where can l find his old posts here?

NuNativs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not singling anyone out, this is across the
> board, myself included. I am personally worried
> about the mental health of the vegan community in
> general. Is it that it attracts fringe people, or
> does being vegan/sprout/raw/fruitarian bring out
> the nuttiness/anger in people?



NuNativs, I don't know anything about the vegan community at large as I skipped right over that diet from a vegetarian diet (which, BTW, seems a very sane community) to a raw vegan diet. I am hoping that there are good examples of raw vegans who maintain more private lives than the raw vegan guru healers and the wannabe aspiring raw vegan guru healers that seemingly will say and do anything for the limelight, spots on bookseller's bestseller lists, and fawning disciples. Even if there are not we can keep tabs on our lab levels, etc., every year and make adjustments when necessary without needing gurus and wannabe gurus at all.

I hope you don't become discouraged from going on a 100% raw vegan diet. IMO, being 100% raw is worth all the trouble and efforts that entails. Foraging is absolutely an important ingredient of success - heirloom weeds for the win! But if someone can't do that they can easily be bought fresh or dried these days.

The only really outstanding raw vegan gurus (that seem honest and solidly sane) that I can think of are Marcus Rothkranz and Cara Brotman. They do eat some non raw vegan stuff like honey, maple syrup, and miso but it's not a biggie in such tiny proportions, IMO. Personally I just sub things for those ingredients in recipes anyway.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I am curious as to who wrote this babble you
> quoted in your file?
>

How unusual. Another unattributed wall of babble from the R X files.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2015 11:17PM by SueZ.

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The only really outstanding raw vegan gurus (that
> seem honest and solidly sane) that I can think of
> are Marcus Rothkranz and Cara Brotman.

Yes, Marcus has really grown on me in the past year and l am a big fan of his personality, and he is a lovely man to talk to.

Rick Dina a very VERY normal too, he is a great example in the raw vegan movement. Goes between 90 - 100% raw. A nice bloke too, and is certainly no dill. We need more like him. Seems as honest as they get.

To me the publicity hungry vegans are like that because their prospects of being successful in other jobs are possibly bleak, but when they come to the raw movement they realise that the movement has very low standards (any tom dick and harry can get in) and many of the audiences seem poorly educated and can be talked into anything , and the aspiring leaders can get easy entry into a guru position preaching to naive people and make money without much competition or being questioned by thinking audiences. That's the impression l get.



SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I am curious as to who wrote this babble you
> > quoted in your file?
> >
>
> How unusual. Another unattributed wall of babble
> from the R X files.

I won't even make a comment, best to button my lip. I had written a long comment but wisely decided not to post it.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2015 11:47PM by The Sproutarian Man.

The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The only really outstanding raw vegan gurus
> (that
> > seem honest and solidly sane) that I can think
> of
> > are Marcus Rothkranz and Cara Brotman.
>
> Yes, Marcus has really grown on me in the past
> year and l am a big fan of his personality, and he
> is a lovely man to talk to.

Hey, stop it, you left out Cara Brotman again who is very much a raw vegan star in her own right.

Here is an interesting article by suez's favorite foe - John Coleman that was posted by fresh aka tao.

Beyond Polemics
J S Coleman
Bionomic Nutrition Forum, 2001

"Interpretation of our past runs the constant risk of degenerating into mere 'paleopoetry' stories that we spin today, stimulated by a few bits of fossil bone, and expressing like Rohrschach tests our own personal prejudices, but devoid of any claim to validity about the past."

The Rise And Fall of The Third Chimpanzee, Jared Diamond, p.70, Vintage Science
"Criticism should not be querulous and wasting, all knife and rootpuller, but guiding, instructive, inspiring."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Introduction

The 'Beyond Veg' web site purports to be a thorough and scientific challenge to vegetarianism based on hard scientific facts and experiential evidence (anecdotes). It attempts to use paleontology, primatological evidence, evolutionary biology and comparative anatomy to rubbish the naturalistic vegetarian hypothesis. This article is intended not only to counter many of the claims of the authors of 'Beyond Veg', but also to reveal the authors terribly erroneous and unscholarly approach to science in pursuit of their dietary dogma.
Basic errors in logic and philosophy are dealt with in the first section and in the second section, an in-depth analysis of some of the more complex issues is presented.

Errors of logic

1) Argumentum ad Novitatem 1 of 10

- age of scientific information does not invalidate
• e.g. "Mountain gorillas are strict vegans; Schaller [1963](a by now outdated source of information on this particular point)"
• e.g. Stevens and Hume [1995] cite "dated" references
The claim that the citation/evidence is "outdated" is not supported by any authoritative opinion. What van Lawick and Goodall observed was "omnivorous" behaviour, but even so, Stevens and Hume stated that the chimpanzee is generally a strict herbivore.
Scientific theory/evidence does not come with a sell by date, it has to be properly disproved or discredited. Stevens and Hume is a modern and authoritative text, and the authors have excellent credentials, unlike the authors of 'Beyond Veg'. As with chimpanzees, rabbits and many other animals classified as herbivores, they sometimes eat animal matter. This is sometimes called 'opportunistic feeding' when it is not very prolific, but even so, rabbits are classed as herbivores.

2) Argumentum ad hominem
- assaulting the person, and not the subject matter
• e.g. because he says his detractors are "extreme", "dietary racists" (etc.)
• e.g. his detractors made a point ". . . often stated in a highly emotional manner."
But, how does one detect ones detractor's emotions via their written word? Of course, one does not; we infer other people's emotions, sometimes erroneously, ourselves. Anyway, are the detractors really so emotionally charged, and even so, this does not make their claims invalid, nor warrant assaulting them as part of supposedly scientific discourse.

3) Argumentum ad ignorantiam
- because we don't know about something, it does not exist
• e.g. "There is no such thing as a veg*n gatherer tribe"
But maybe there was and we never knew about it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

4) Argumentum ad nauseam
- the size and amount of evidence presented does not reflect validity
Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific? If any authority working in the anthropological or biological fields has stated that humans are "omnivorous" that need to eat animal matter, why not just cite them, just show us the evidence and be done? Instead we see a long-winded and repetitive mess.

5) Audiatur et altera pars
- lack of supporting evidence
Countless of the claims of Beyond Veg are unsupported by scientific evidence, they are solely the often false and bizarre, beliefs of the authors.
• e.g. "Plant foods available in evolution were poor zinc and iron sources"
The supporting evidence from millions of years of virtually unknown plant biology is?
Some plant foods, such as peanuts, are excellent sources of nearly all the essential minerals, and this includes iron and zinc. According to Leonard Mervyn (B.Sc., Ph.D., C.Chem, F.R.S.C) in 'Thorsons Complete Guide To Vitamins and Minerals', soft fruits "all supply good dietary intakes of potassium, calcium, phosphorus and iron."
The mineral content of plant foods depends mainly on soil content and condition. According to Dr. Duke's Phytochemical and Ethnobotanical Databases, Lettuce Leaf (Lactuca sativa L.) contains between 27 and 974 ppm (i.e. max. about 0.1 grams per 100 grams) of zinc. The RDI for zinc is 15 to 20 milligrams, thus 100 grams of best (zinc rich) lettuce provides nearly 5 times the RDI!
If modern plant foods can provide nutrition sufficiency, why not ancient ones?

6) Bifurcation
- presenting two options when more may be available
• e.g. because ". . . the [frugivorous human] individual would eventually die from the toxic effects of the by-products of protein digestion . . . and be less likely to reproduce"
The meat eating frugivorous human does not have to live/die, they might just be slightly ill, and not to a sufficient level to significantly affect reproductive fitness! Of course, is it perfectly possible that meat eating/cooked food eating humans preferentially survived because they were better nourished in a harsh environment, but not necessarily because of any adaptation. Their survival habits would have been culturally transmitted, perhaps long beyond their initial advantage.

7) Non sequitur (with unstated inference)
- the conclusion does not follow from the observations
• e.g. "extremes are rare in nature"
Is the intended inference that because anteaters like the aard-vark, echidna and pangolin eat an "extreme" (narrow/monophageous) diet, they are somehow incorrect? Do anteaters need to be more omnivorous and eat some plant matter, and are koala diets meat deficient? Variation is the normal in nature, and what is common or rare is irrelevant in establishing the correct diet of an individual species. Are we also to believe that because the chimps at Gombe eat insects, all chimps eat insects? Or, that because some gorillas eat insects and invertebrates, all gorillas do?
• e.g. ". . . their [human] guts have the dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are characteristic of folivores".
From this it is falsely claimed that ". . . Chivers prefers the term faunivore to indicate that humans are adapted to a diet that includes animal foods (fauna)." Chivers states that the gut dimensions of humans are by some abstract measure, similar to carnivores. Yet the stronger structural evidence, haustra, shows herbivorous adaptations. Chivers is only discussing gut morphology in isolation, and never "classes humans as faunivores". The observation does not disprove the hypothesis that humans are strict herbivore- frugivores. Carnivore dimensioned guts might also be a good thing to digest fruit.
• e.g. ". . . existence of intestinal receptors for the specific absorption of heme iron is strong evidence of adaptation to animal foods in the diet"
These receptors might also serve well to soak up an animals own heme iron, leaking out as a result of intestinal injury, and thus prevent bacterial infection. The digestive system of a wild animal may need to take some abuse. The cell receptors of any animal cell, are quite likely to be able to take up similar chemicals found in other animal tissues - but this does not mean they are supposed to eat them.
• e.g. ". . the lack of reliable (year-round) plant sources [of B12] suggests evolutionary adaptation to animal foods in the human diet."
How is that? First of all, plant foods are by no means devoid of vitamin B12. They usually contain pink pigmented facultative methylotrophs, bacteria that make vitamin B12, as well as being able to take it up from suitable soil. I had a box of Chilean raspberries, and the label claims that they provide 30% of the RDA of vitamin B12 per 100 grams. While there seems to be little evidence that modern humans can obtain their own supply via bacteria in the gut, this does not prove that our ancestors were similarly limited. Because B12 can be stored in the liver and last for 10 to 20 years, there is no need for a year-round supply. Indeed such an adaptation suggests an animal that can do without the vitamin for extended periods, much as the camel can store water in its blood, and so manage without it for a long time. A regular flesh eater would have no need of such adaptations.
• e.g. "Dietary categories are not strict in nature"
But it does not follow from this that all animals are omnivorous. Monophages such as the anteaters and the koala do exist.

8) misplaced causation
e.g. Because (he alleges) most vegan raw diets fail, then the vegan raw diet causes malnutrition, but no attempt is made to examine socio-economic factors, the primary factor in nutritional status of human populations (how many raw food eaters are wealthy enough to eat well at all?)

9) omissions
As any PR hack knows, the best way of presenting your case in a positive light is to omit any contradicting facts. (see the second section for other major omissions)
• e.g. "Plant foods are poor sources of EFAs"
Peanuts (and some other seeds/legumes/nuts) are 15% or more EFA, and we only require a few grams of EFA per day. Plant foods are the richest sources of EFAs, although they do not provide EPA and DHA. In the normal healthy cells of most populations, EPA and DHA can be manufactured from alpha-linolenic acid (LNA), which is found abundantly in plant seed oils. However some degenerative conditions may impair our ability to synthesize sufficient EPA and DHA from LNA. Certain populations and a few individuals are also affected by potentially deleterious mutations that impair the ability of their cells to synthesize EPA and DHA from LNA, but these tend to occur in traditional peoples who have depended on fish as a staple in their diets. According to Udo Erasmus, in his book 'Fats that Heal Fats that Kill', this affects between 2% and 10% of these populations involved. These people have to obtain preformed EPA and DHA in their diet. While fish manufacture EPA and DHA from LNA, they obtain most of it preformed from brown and red algae (Erasmus, op. cit., p.259).

10) contradictions
e.g. How can it be simultaneously claimed that "The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore. . .", while at the same time maintaining that examples of animals eating such diets do not exist, and that all other apes eat leaves or animal products? Logically, if humans were uniquely adapted to a fruit only diet, then we would expect only them to have the unique anatomy for such a diet. And, the absence of any other examples would no more disprove the human-frugivore hypothesis, than singular case of the eucalyptus eating koala would be proven dietarily wrong, for its crime of being dietarily unique.

JR’s summary from above:

Errors of logic

1) - age of scientific information does not invalidate - outdated source of information - the citation/evidence is "outdated"
Scientific theory/evidence does not come with a sell by date, it has to be properly disproved or discredited.
2) - assaulting the person, and not the subject matter
3) - because we don't know about something, it does not exist Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
4) - the size and amount of evidence presented does not reflect validity Why isn't 'Beyond Veg' short and specific? 5) - lack of supporting evidence
6) - presenting two options when more may be available
7) - the conclusion does not follow from the observations
8) misplaced causation
9) omissions
10) contradictions

Errors in philosophy

1) confusing Lamarkism with Darwinism/does not understand evolution
• e.g. ". . .Such an attitude also reflects misunderstanding and ignorance of how evolution works. . . Once meat eating becomes a part of the long-term environment, then evolutionary selective pressure will favour genes that are best adapted to that environment. . . In the long term, genetic adaptation to such a diet, by evolution, is the inevitable result"
This is actually a restatement of Lamarks invalid second postulate about perceived needs, but unfortunately genes don't provide for any perceived needs. We know that about 99% of the species that ever lived are now extinct! Organisms don't just handily "adapt" to newer environments when they pop up - there is no reason to accept that because meat is eaten, favourable genes must exist to adapt. So, 'Beyond Veg' not only misunderstands a crucial aspect of evolution, it even puts invalid Lamarkism in its place!
• e.g. ". . . survival of the fittest is really a broad-based, long-term (multi-generational)proposition."
This may be generally true, but it is not always the case. Sometimes a sudden environmental change can immediately remove genes from the pool.

2) Platonism
Platonism makes the error of suggesting that there are ideal forms ("essence" which are at the heart of complex systems. To suggest that because most apes eat some animal matter, and therefore apes are essentially "omnivorous", and then to take this abstract category and imply that humans should also be "omnivorous" to fit the normal, is an invalid platonic proposition. There is no average or ideal ape diet, other than in the ideas people have. This problem, which is often seen in biology, is explained in detail at the beginning of the next section. Examples are given below in the final sub-section The Paleopoetry Diet.

3) reification
Categories and averages are abstract concepts, they help us to think about things, but they do not describe any biological reality. When, for example, we create the abstract concept of intelligence to create a property reflecting certain kinds of intellectual performance, it does not follow that there is such a thing as intelligence. Instead many complex and dynamic processes influence the abstract property we are attempting to measure and call intelligence. Similarly a taxa organises organisms according to their perceived relatedness, not their real relatedness.

How scientific is comparative biology?

Before any meaningful debate can begin we need to understand the underlying philosophy of comparative anatomy. Is this paradigm scientifically acceptable? We note that the biological sciences are not exact empirical sciences -- they remain primarily descriptive, rather than experimental sciences. Classically, until the evolutionary theory and discovery of genes, fairly recently, the biological sciences have lacked an under-pinning theory (or "central dogma" and something to measure precisely. Both these problems have now been better addressed, although fairly late in comparison to the other hard sciences. With this knowledge, we can place the biological disciplines into modern and classical philosophies. The neo-Darwinian disciplines, such as genetics and molecular biology represent the new fields of biology, and the taxonomic and descriptive fields are representative of the classical biological fields of study.

The comparative fields of biology merge together both the modern Darwinian philosophy, with the classic platonic philosophy. As Dr. Chivers points out himself, citing Plato in Gordon et al. 1972, Plato clearly understood the limitations of his philosophy; "A cautious man should above all be on his guard for resemblances: they are a very slippery sort of thing". (1)
The comparative fields of biology have then, a tenancy to classify (i.e. group) characteristics, and discuss their similarities and differences, together with study of their adaptive functions. These two philosophies are at odds with each other as Stephen Jay Gould points out in his book 'Life's Grandeur' (2). The platonic philosophy presumes to create abstract concepts, or ideal models, and then fit real characteristics into these abstractions, with poor fits presumed to be badly fitting, or somehow non-ideal or in error. In contrast, Darwinian philosophy has no problem with dealing in and accepting variety as the normal. Gould (p. 40, op. cit.) states that "we are still suffering from a legacy as old as Plato, a tenancy to abstract a single ideal or averages the "essence" of a system, and to devalue or ignore variation. . ." and that "In Darwin's post-Platonic world, variation stands as the fundamental reality and calculated averages become abstractions."

To summarise then, attempts to classify things according to idealised and abstract categories, such as dietary niches (e.g. "omnivorism", are an ill conceived approach to achieving greater understanding of the biological realities. We must accept that any fit to such abstract groupings satisfies our desire to classify, rather than to explain. The practical ramifications become very serious when we realise that many species can be classified together, but their diets are wholly inappropriate for each other. For example, both koalas and cattle are strict herbivores, but their diets are unsuitable for each other. On the other hand rabbits and cattle are both herbivores with more compatible diets. Such apparently contradictory variation is wholly acceptable to Darwinian philosophy, but looks confusing with the platonic ideological system. When classifying digestive/dietary adaptations, we need to be sure that these are based on actual observations of feeding patterns and material eaten, and not upon purely abstract concepts - we want the numbers. We must ensure that taxonomic grouping is accurately reflective of diet. In addition we must also not repeat the same classification errors when dealing with food groups. We must also remember that one particular anatomical form can serve many different functions across species.

These platonic limitations have been identified and discussed extensively by Chivers et al., in "The Digestive System In Mammals" , and also earlier in "Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates"(3). Indeed, it is recognition of these problems that has inspired these scientists to develop comparative physiology towards an acceptable scientific discipline.

"Categorizing always includes a great danger because it can narrow thoughts and neglect the view to the basis of data used and required for the categories."
Paul Winkler, Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates, p. 161

What about "Omnivorism"

In both the works of Chivers, previously cited, his views on the old dietary category of "omnivorism" are clearly expressed along with his reasons. These are based upon material facts. He states that:

"Because, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of food processing and cookery." (4)
Chivers et al. also present graphical presentations of primate diets that make it quite clear that primates are not broadly generalised feeders such as the term "omnivore" suggests. They either prefer to eat fruits and animal matter in the case of smaller primates, or mainly fruit and leaf matter in the case of larger primates. The term omnivore is not really acceptable in this scientific debate, because it is not dietarily descriptive. This is clearly the view of authoritative scientists in the field of primatology, because they frequently place double quotation marks around the term omnivore when it is used. In this way they are reflecting the extra-scientific use of the term. It seems that the terms was probably coined before any useful analysis of diet had been made, because as Chivers says (The Digestive System In Mammals p.4); "The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." In short, omnivorism is biologically impossible to do effectively under natural conditions -- only the food processing techniques of man have created such possibilities.

Although some of Chivers own research points towards human gut morphology as being comparable to that of a faunivorous species, he is not so bold as to actually state that humans are faunivores.

It is clear that his findings are inconclusive as he states in 'The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution' (4), "Humans are on the inner edge of the faunivore cluster, showing the distinctive adaptations of their guts for meat-eating, or for some other rapidly digested foods, in contrast to the frugivorous apes". This statement suggests that the anatomical form or the digestive system reflects the properties of the food, and not its biological origin. While it is clear that the human digestive system differs anatomically to those of other frugivorous primates, it is accepted that the adaptation is for rapidly digested food, which may be flesh, OR some other rapidly digested foods. We must therefore have more anatomical evidence to support the hypothesis of humans having a flesh eating adaptation. Furthermore, humans are on the edge of the faunivore grouping, and not the centre, so the result is all the more contestable.

Of course, measuring and comparing the different surface areas of parts of the digestive system is only one way of comparing dietary adaptations. One needs also to consider the structure of the digestive system, to look at the teeth, and also the chemistry of digestion.

Let us now look at that classic bone of contention that proud meat-eaters point to, the human canine tooth. According to Glenn C. Conroy in 'Primate Evolution', page 380 to 381, ape and human teeth and mouths are distinctly different. Apes have a rectangular dental arch shape, while humans have a parabolic shape, but perhaps more significantly humans have "Incisiform" canines, whereas ape canines are described as "Stout, large, projecting". Indeed, incisiform canine teeth like the humans, are totally unique amongst higher primates. Enlarged spatulate incisors are recognised as an adaptation for tough foods and to fruit eating. Humans are not the same as apes, but just like them in so many ways.

If we accept the suggestion that humans evolved from some ape-like proto human ancestor with large protruding canines, that were probably pointed, we must ask what diet promoted the development of the well enamelled incisiform canine to mimic that of the other incisors, even though the underlying dentine structure is still pointy? An additional incisor would be most advantageous to a fruit-eating primate, one that must have so depended on fruit consumption, that even the small addition of an extra pseudo-incisor conferred a selective advantage. This dependence may have been because the proto hominid had a diet based highly, or perhaps wholly on fruit (or fruit like food), or because at some critical time, only fruits were available to eat for much of the preceding period.

Other animals having incisiform canines include sheep, elk, bison, caribou and cattle, where they use them to deal with fibrous vegetation. Amongst primates, incisiform canines are found in Lemurs, the larger of which eat herbivore-frugivore diets, although some species do include insects. By omitting crucial anatomical evidence of humanities frugivorous specialisations, it becomes easier to believe incorrectly, in an "omnivore" adaptation. The earliest hominid to have a canine that is between the primitive ape form, and the incisiform modern human form is Ardipithecus ramidis. This animal, which may have lived some 5 million years ago, is claimed to have a skull with features similar to a chimp, but teeth more like a human.

The term "omnivore" is in fact a misnomer, as Suzanne Ripley reports in her chapter of 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 33;
"Insofar as frugivores must look beyond fruits (their energy source) to animals or leaves for protein, they are generalised feeders, sometimes called "omnivores", albeit inaccurately, (Chivers and Hladick, 1980)."

Ripley omits to mention nuts and seeds as potential primate protein sources.
Furthermore, we must remind ourselves that the above rules may not apply to humans who are different from other primates, so that the generalisations made about frugivores may not apply to us. We must be reminded that variation is the rule in evolution. No other primate uses bipedal locomotion as much as humans do, but it is absurd to suggest that we are somehow incorrect to walk bipedally. Ripley (op. cit.) also categorises strictly frugivorous monkeys, partly carnivorous chimpanzees and hunter-gatherer humans, under the single banner of "frugivores". (p.40)

Ripley classes hominids as "Frugivore-macrofaunivores", and alleges that our increase in body size over that of other primate frugivores is possible because of the inclusion of animal matter in the diet. This is quite possible, but there may be other explanations. For example, on page 54 (op. cit.) she suggests that chimpanzees achieved an increase in body size by utilising "hard-shelled" nuts in addition to termites -- insectivorous primates are smaller than chimpanzees. Plant, as well as animal foods, can provide abundant levels of fats and proteins.

Greater protein and fat intake can be achieved without using animal matter in the diet, by including young leaves or seeds, and these may be in the fruit, or as separate items such as sprouts, nuts or grains. Sweet leguminous fruits also yield sufficient protein content to satisfy human requirements. In addition, without taking relative rates of digestion into account, comparison by nutritional content alone is misleading. Human requirements for protein and lipids are in any case easy to meet on a plant based diet - there is no shortage of people now, who only eat plant foods.

Do all primates eat animal matter?
The answer may be yes, and this may even be true for all mammals (humans included), because it is virtually impossible, even with food processing technology to remove insect matter from natural food sources. Even sleeping humans who breathe through their mouths probably ingest impressive numbers of bed lice. But this line of debate risks entering into the reductio ad absurdum posturing. Clearly any meaningful debate on the issue needs to identify at what level of ingestion, insect matter is a useful part of the diet, and at what level it is insignificant. In addition, the presence of parasitic or symbiotic animal life in digestive system also means that many mammals are receiving some "animal" form of nutrition.

Unless sprayed, most grain foods will contain some weevils, in addition small mammals fall into the harvesting equipment or are killed in stores or processing plants, and thus very small amounts of animal matter are found even in bread, and probably more so if the grain is more naturally produced. Even so, people who eat these foods can still claim to be "vegetarian", though it is inaccurate to suggest that such a the diet is free of all animal tissue. The point is that they did not intend to eat the animal matter, and it was not practical to remove it. The same might be said of gorillas and their diets, although we might suggest that they are not motivated by intent to avoid eating animals, but rather they have no intention to do otherwise.

Vegetarians have been criticised for abusing scientific sources in claiming that the gorillas a vegetarian. But what else are we to make of statements such as "The gorilla is a strict vegetarian. . ." from Bradley, 1922, quoted in 'Apes of the World', page 55. And what of Yerkes and Yerkes (1929) conclusion that "apes are primarily vegetarians" (5). Of course such statements fired up the vegetarian agenda.

What else does Tuttle have to say in his extensive review of primate literature on diet?

Orangutans have been widely observed to eat insects and sometimes carrion, but: "MacKinnon (1971, 1974a) never saw wild orangutans drink from streams or eat vertebrate prey. He found no hair, feathers or bones in their feces" (p. 66), "Vertebrate remains were not found in any of the fecal samples (Rijksen, 1978)" (p.69), ". . . the only report of meat-eating by wild Pongo pygmaeus is that of a consorting young Ketambe female" (p.74).

Common chimpanzees are now also known to hunt and even engage in the cannibalistic feeding on their infants. This by no means proves that all chimp groups have engaged in this behaviour, or that it is nutritionally essential. The following findings have been less well reported: According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal variations in chimp die.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81). In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967, Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete, or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood." (p.87). From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.

Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).

The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle (p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests. Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105), and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed" study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107) In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)

The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in 'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135, that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs, insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)" He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."
In Noel Rowes colourful book 'The Pictorial Guide To The Living Primates' there are a total of 13 primate species listed as eating no animal matter. These are:
Callithrix kuhlii
Callicebus personatus
Hapalemur aureus
Lemur catta
Chiropotes albinasus
Chiropotes satanas
Procolobus verus
Trachypithecus cristatus
Aloatta seniculus
Trachypithecus vetulus
Aloatta palliata
Hylobates concolor
Ateles belzebuth

Species listed as eating less than 1% of their diet as animal matter include the following species:
Gorilla gorilla beringei, 0.1%
Pithecia albicans, 0.4%
Callithrix humeralifer, 0.5%
Pithecia pithecia, 0.8%

If primates do eat animal matter, why?
It is not enough to argumentum ad Novitatem, state that later differing observations disprove earlier observations -- this is concerning in a laboratory setting where all external variables are controlled. Differences in behaviour patterns may arise swiftly, or may vary geographically -- older findings may be perfectly valid. The use of predation in Old World monkeys is also discussed and it seems that this is "primarily an emergency measure for special needs (Kortlandt and Kooij, 1963)." In support of the idea that the eating of animal products is a response to environmental stress, he sites some of his findings and those of Jane Goodall (from personal communications) stating that in nine tests, when groups compromising on average 9.4 apes passed by a total of 16 times and noticed some hens eggs, placed in dummy birds nests, only six times (38%) did an individual take away and probably eat an egg, and these eggs were presumed to only have been eaten by 3 individuals. However, in the harsher environment at Gombe, Goodhall observed that 60% of the chimpanzees ate the hen's eggs at the camp-site.

Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below in his evidence.
• the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
• the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
• rarity of pertinent field observations
• the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to be much more common)
Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."

So it appears that chimps, and perhaps hominids, have resorted to eating meat because no suitable plant food was available. Interestingly Kortlandt cites old findings of renowned German zoologist Reichenow, who published an article in 1920, relating how wild chimpanzees and gorillas had possibly symbiotic ciliates that live mainly in the hindguts, but the majority of which were digested by the host. After the apes had been kept for a while, these ciliates died off and the primates developed digestive disorders. Furthermore "newly captured apes showed "disgust" (Abscheu) when offered meat, but after habituation they learned to eagerly eat large quantities of it." Reichenow inferred that the symbiotic function of these ciliates may be to convert vegetable food into what he named "animal food for a vegetarian that requires nutrients of animal origin".

The Paleopoetry Diet
Science is a wonderful tool at helping us to explore and understand nature. It is however, only one way of approaching an understanding of ourselves, and at 'Beyond Veg' we see the classical error of reification - where sciences abstract taxonomic constructs are held to reflect a concrete biological reality. While it is quite reasonable to order fossil finds or existing species into parsimonious patterns of similarity and perceived change through time, it is a great error to think that these organisations are reflective of our actual ancestry, or indeed that the fossils found are our actual ancestors (although they might be!).

Recent analysis of plant DNA has better enabled the relationships between plant species to be identified. As a result of this, the taxa have had to be changed because the phenotype information used to class the plants did not reflect their genetic relatedness. If the taxonomy of existing organisms, which we examine every aspect of, is still misleading us as to biological relatedness, then what hope have we for reliably relating organisms for which we only have fossil fragments and no DNA?

According to 'Beyond Veg' all the paleontologists evidence indicates that human ancestors were "omnivores". But how much scientific weight should we apply to what paleontologists say? According to Richard Lewontin (6), in his book 'It Ain't Necessarily So', we can only be sure a fossil is really a human ancestor if it is already "indubitably" human, but then it has no interest. Furthermore he says that "The further back in time one goes and the greater the differences from us, the more likely it is that the bones belong to some twenty-second cousin twelve times removed." (p.59) As each new fossil find is incorporated into the evolutionary tree, the tree becomes more complex, and the simple linear view of our alleged ancestry that is presented, has to be adjusted. Lewontin says that "most fossils of different ages cannot be connected in a linear sequence, but represent a small sample from a lot of parallel lines."

While paleontology offers us a glimpse into what human evolution may have been like, it does not give us anything like a conclusive, or even an accurate picture. At its best, such evidence may only serve as crude, and perhaps sometimes misleading guide as to what actually happened. Some people are seduced into feeling that paleontology offers us an accurate history. This belief is fuelled by a desire to know their past, more than by scientific fact.
The fossil record can be assembled to conform to what we would expect from the concept of evolutionary theory, but it does not describe the evolution that actually happened - that would be an error of reification.

Conclusions
This article has clearly demonstrated numerous gross and glaring errors in the 'Beyond Veg' material, errors of logic and in philosophy. It has proven that the author does not understand evolution, and that by omission, a distorted view of the available scientific evidence has been produced. It has shown how the authors incorrectly report scientific observations, and draw invalid deductions, and how they refuse to concede that humans are frugivores. Sufficient evidence has been produced to demonstrate that some gorilla groups are accurately described as "vegetarian", and also that some chimp groups may not have been meat-eaters. Similarly, many primates have been identified that are not known to ingest animal matter.

References
1. D. J. Chivers, P. Langer, The Digestive System In Mammals: Food Form And Function, Camb. Uni. Press, 1994, p.25
2. S. J. Gould, Life's Grandeur: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin, Vintage,1992
3. D. J. Chivers et al., Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates, Plenum Press, NY 1984
4. The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution, Jones, Martin and Pilbeam, Camb. Uni. Press, 1992
5. R. H. Tuttle, Apes of the World; Their Social Behaviour Communication, Mentality and Ecology, 1986
6. R. Lewontin, It Ain't Necessarily So, Granta, 2000

Copyright: The text of this article and all related figures are not copyright, and may be freely reproduced or distributed by any party, without reservation, although the author prefers to be identified and so accredited. This HTML is copyright © J. S. Coleman, 2001, all rights reserved.
contact: jsc@eloi.nildram.co.uk

The above information written by John Coleman was posted by tao...see below
Date: 04-27-01 05:34 tao counterpoint to beyondveg

SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sproutarian Man Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SueZ Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > The only really outstanding raw vegan gurus
> > (that
> > > seem honest and solidly sane) that I can
> think
> > of
> > > are Marcus Rothkranz and Cara Brotman.
> >
> > Yes, Marcus has really grown on me in the past
> > year and l am a big fan of his personality, and
> he
> > is a lovely man to talk to.
>
> Hey, stop it, you left out Cara Brotman again who
> is very much a raw vegan star in her own right.

I've never got into her because she is into recipes. Anyone who talks recipes loses my interest straight away, that's why l don't follow Markus, but l used to love his old messages. Recipes and gourmet is like kryptonite to superman...I just wannna run away in the opposite direction because it is completely the opposite to how l think. I can understand why people enjoy recipes and gourmet (old SAD mentality dies hard), but these things are everything l am completely against because l see it as a great compromise on many levels. Watching a raw food recipe video is like trying to make me eat razor blades...l scowl and cringe and shake my head.


Is Cara a star because of her talented food preparation?

www.thesproutarian.com

SueZ wrote:
They manage to have a lot of sex without becoming depleted as some false raw vegan gurus warn against.

Tai:
This topic is discussed in Chinese medicine in relation to healing kidney, back and spine problems and anything from the waist to the feet, especially relating to bones, cartilage, etc (and it even relates to the hair and brain and all bones). People who have depleted essence are encouraged not to engage in excess sex or sex at all. Those who have abundant essence or jing have more leeway (they will still lose energy, but it won't manifest as pathology for a long time, or it will seem just as normal aging.). Everyone is born with varying amounts of this jing. Those who have less jing must be more careful. My teachers explained how Bill Clinton is a classic case of jing deficiency due to excess sex. One should tonify the kidney essence and heal the weakness before engaging in any more essence loss, in case of a severe condition. So why are the Chinese so convinced? IT's because they are able to heal severe problems and healing is a step by step process and they take notice of what adds or subtracts energy.

The topic is also much deeper too, as the Chinese relate excessive emotion to injuring the organs. Mastering the mind and heart and passion definitely benefits one's health.

I have never heard a raw vegan guru explain this concept in detail. I read one raw guru say this very generically in his book, but when I watched his videos, I noticed that he had not mastered lust at all. But at least he understood the concept.

I could write so much on this topic and it's not just theory. Chinese herbalists are adept on this topic but spiritual saints like Jesus are masters of this topic. (So what is this jing or essence? It's not just genetics, but also a kind of energy that is present in our energy body/aura. I would explain more, but I don't think it's appropriate. But I think it's important to say that there is a lot of information on this topic and those who wish to understand are not left guessing.)

Is she related to Juliano Brotman

She is his sister.

Tai wrote
>People who have depleted essence are encouraged not to engage in excess sex or sex at all.

>My teachers explained how Bill Clinton is a classic case of jing deficiency due to excess sex

How does one know he has depleted essence?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/12/2015 05:03PM by RawPracticalist.

Keep in mind Marcus has only been freely ejaculating this last year, I say he will wear himself out and age quickly if he keeps it up.

This does not apply to females though who can freely orgasm and should to circulate the orgasmic energy between the couple with the male absorbing and retaining like a battery, which he is.

I'm past 50 and once or twice a month is my max or I feel it. Sex everyday if possible though, multiple times if time permits. If a man retains he can go forever, the woman wins.

Raw Pr wrote:
How does one know he has depleted essence?

Tai:
I forgot to mention that depleted jing will also manifest in the ears. So, Bill has three qualities: knee weakness, hearing loss and white hair at a younger age. Those three shows jing deficiency. They say his hearing loss was tied to his band practice in his youth. Okay, well not all musicians lose their hearing so young. His knee problem came from a relatively simple fall. My teacher alerted us to the fact that the jing deficiency is the cause of the weakness that allowed such a simple injury to cause such damage.

[articles.latimes.com]
[articles.latimes.com]

NuNativs wrote:
This does not apply to females though

Tai:
I like you NuNativs and I don't want to burst your bubble. A happily married couple should stay happy. Frustration and pent up feelings are unhealthy too.

But the truth is that this applies for women as well. There is a physical component, the fluids, but there is an "energetic" component, as well. What I refer to as energy is not only in the aura and meridians but pervades the body through the bones and tissues.

IT all depends on what one wants in life. If one is seeking to cultivate one's energy, it matters. If one is seeking maximal pleasure, it doesn't. But even those who want maximal pleasure will have more now, but less later in life.

I don't know much about tibetan tantrism, but I heard that it was originally done by high level lamas that already conquered lust and it was a secret and relatively limited practice. Any spiritual practice that depends on another besides oneself is very limited. You may have heard of "shaktipat" or something similar. So the practice requires initiation from a real lama. Some people started doing it without initiation and then started teaching it in the west. Before long, it became convoluted and twisted, because the people had not conquered lust. Now it is a joke, a distortion of what it actually is. Yes, there are some practices that are secret. When you watch the buddha boy documentary, the monks openly say that some of the meditation is a secret. You can see someone crossing their legs and close their eyes, but the actual teaching is for the initiates.

Anyway, NuNativs, in Daoist theory, there is both yin and yang present in the human body, so one does NOT need to depend on another human to cultivate yin and yang. Any daoist that is promoting this practice has no clue about actually using daoism to cultivate their body. Tibetan tantrism is not daoist, needless to say.

Tai, I like you too you have a wealth of knowledge, much of which I agree with.

What exactly are you advocating, celibacy? I don't agree with that whatsoever personally. I see women that are sexually repressed and in my observation they age rapidly.

We're talking about a middle ground, not being overly indulgent nor denying our impuses with celibacy, instead channeling them towards a higher purpose as Daniel Reid illustrates in his book.

Cameron Diaz did an interview recently saying that what keeps her young is lots of sex.

This woman says the same...
Sexual Energy, energizing organs, and seminal retention for longevity

At my age, I actually have the power I had in my twenties because I have been disciplined somewhat and practiced what I'm saying, no depletion.

Health nuts are wrong saying diet is the end all be all for longevity, thus they die as young as meat/junk eaters. In my opinion storing and circulating the Lifeforce/Sexual Energy is more important than what you eat. The diet and tonics are to keep the glands young and vital, but they are channels for the Lifeforce which is the true healer...

A very interesting post Tai, one of the best l have ever read by anyone.

www.thesproutarian.com

Celibate priests, monks and nuns are not known for their longevity, and often they end up molesting innocents from their imbalance.

Orgasmic bliss is the energy that creates worlds. Though you and TSM have a bias against it, which I tend to think is shame and prudism is fine, but don't claim it's for health reasons, cause I think you're far off the mark...

So far I haven't seen anything in the alternative medical field that the Clements can claim as original to them. What am I missing? What have they brought to the table that originated with them? Anyone?

For instance, I was just reading some reviews of their book on toxic clothing and was surprised to see reviewers crediting the Clements with this discovery while, in fact, it's been well known in the alternative community for at least 20 year before they wrote their book that I know of. That is how long ago I was told by my alternative M.D. to wear only natural fiber fabrics with low impact dyes.

I have not read their book but I noticed on their blurb on it that they allude to toxins in man made fabrics having some correlation to the general decline people's health. I don't doubt this but if that is how they see it why do they sell at least two of these toxins at HHI? Why is Teflon bad in clothing but fine to use in dehydrator liners that food comes directly in contact with while they both are heated? Why are nano metals embedded in fabrics suspect but it is fine for HHI to invasively send it via IV's into people's bloodstreams in their clinic?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2015 12:56AM by SueZ.