US army uses psy ops on US senators

[awepittance]

 

As far as I can tell this new idea about depopulation came into vogue when people like Pat Buchanan became popular in the US; conspiracy theorists wanted a way to speak to the fear of job loss of the god-fearing blue collar middle class, and "population control" - they want to steal your job and your fertility - seemed a good way to do it.

 

 

do some reading up on the John Birch society, these theories have been around a lot longer than Pat Buchanan has been a popular figure

[Guest yikes]

indeed

control has a facade of accuracy and specific scope built into it's bullshit facade yet in reality it is greed driven unplanned lopsided profit oriented damnation for all living creatures and is wantonly haphazard in its execution/destruction of the ecosystem

[delet...]

There always seems to be a disconnect between the actions that demonstrate the casual malevolence on so many levels, of that government and it's corporate masters. And messages delivered that are seemingly more mundane and closer to home, but never the less disseminated via same untrustworthy sources.

 

Like food safety, for example. I mean if the intelligence agencies can stand up and plain face lie about the actions of other nations and then the media can tamely report these lines without subjecting what's said to any analysis at all. Why can't other government systems be just as corrupted and corruptible.

 

Further it is the same in any profession, a scientist can carry a belief system around with him that allows him to disregard evidence that is contrary to the economic benefit of him, his family and his company. Not everyone with a lab coat is somehow above reproach, they are all every bit as human as the rest of us.

 

---

 

eneewae, wotefvr. xis arguement bloez

[delet...]

indeed

control has a facade of accuracy and specific scope built into it's bullshit facade yet in reality it is greed driven unplanned lopsided profit oriented damnation for all living creatures and is wantonly haphazard in its execution/destruction of the ecosystem

 

The idea that the elites would somehow run contrary to all of the growth is good mantras that sustain the corporations that they run or work for, doesn't work for me. In fact they are pushing hard for increased immigration so that they don't have the wage pressures of a tight labour market.

[awepittance]

My understanding is that fluoride is meant to come in contact with your teeth to have any supposed effect on your teeth.

Digesting it is just swallowing poison.

 

digesting fluoride is completely unnecessary, the only argument i hear for what it's not 'that bad' is that its an infinitesimal amount so its not toxic to your body. Still makes absolutely zero logical sense though how one could actually argue on behalf of ingesting fluoride, but people do, regularly.

[chenGOD]

depopulation makes no sense. "yes, we'll build up the population so we can then wipe them out, creating resentment against us and possible chance of people murdering us to stop the genocide. That's a logical step."

 

Fluoride - look at how much goddamn fluoride is in your toothpaste. Are you telling me you've never swallowed any toothpaste? The idea is that fluoride in the water contributes to overall tooth health, and is good especially for poor people. Read up on how the fluoride works in the water - it is not through digestion.

 

delet - i know it's hard to believe, but people that do the research, people in the government often are not evildoers. Sure not everyone will have the best interests of everyone at heart, but you would be surprised.

 

Wait, if they want depopulation, why are they increasing immigration? Increased immigration can push wages down, although if your country has a minimum wage, and it prosecutes people for hiring illegal immigrants, then you shouldn't have any problems. And really, I'm sorry but the idea of an Australian complaining about immigration is as bad as Canadians or Americans complaining about immigrants.

[awepittance]

 

Fluoride - look at how much goddamn fluoride is in your toothpaste. Are you telling me you've never swallowed any toothpaste? The idea is that fluoride in the water contributes to overall tooth health, and is good especially for poor people. Read up on how the fluoride works in the water - it is not through digestion.

 

so just to be clear you're not argument on behalf of swallowing fluoride into one's own body, you just think the benefits (for the poor) outweigh any potential negative health effects from the entire population ingesting fluoride

yeah it's not for through digestion and i know digesting it isn't how the health effects are supposed to be gained by why should someone be made fun of or ostracized for choosing not to ingest it? I don't make fun of people who recycle even though it's a infinitesimal drop in the bucket to save the environment. Just like choosing not to ingest fluoride is a small drop in the bucket towards my overall health. I just don't see why choosing to filter out chemicals like fluoride out of one's water is so lol worthy or worth criticizing. What's stranger to me is how there is almost no 'in between' discussion about it. Most people either defend it's usage across the board and seem unwilling to admit the obvious, you ingest a toxic chemical that isn't NECESSARY to be added to your water supply for your dental health or the counter...people who think it's designed to depopulate the planet.

 

Edit: you've just established again that the only beneficial health effect from fluoride being in our water supply is for poor people who don't brush their teeth, so why again is the rest of the population supposed to find a toxic chemical in the drinking water totally acceptable? because its 'low level' ? that's not a good argument for why people should have no issues with it.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

Edit: you've just established again that the only beneficial health effect from fluoride being in our water supply is for poor people who don't brush their teeth, so why again is the rest of the population supposed to find a toxic chemical in the drinking water totally acceptable? because its 'low level' ? that's not a good argument for why people should have no issues with it.

it's not toxic in low levels, so it's ok. end of story. the quantity in tapwater is orders of magnitude below that which would harm you. just like consuming water is ok in low levels, but you drown if you have too much. that's not a reason to never ever drink any water innit.

[awepittance]

Edit: you've just established again that the only beneficial health effect from fluoride being in our water supply is for poor people who don't brush their teeth, so why again is the rest of the population supposed to find a toxic chemical in the drinking water totally acceptable? because its 'low level' ? that's not a good argument for why people should have no issues with it.

it's not toxic in low levels, so it's ok. end of story. just like consuming water is ok in low levels, but you drown if you have too much. innit.

 

but again that doesn't explain or give weight to whatsoever the necessity of ingesting it. Water is necessary for our survival. Fluoride is good for keeping our teeth clean, does nothing beneficial and it is potentially harmful (argue about the amounts all you want, it cant be denied that fluoride is a toxic chemical ) whatsoever when ingested. the only argument you can make is that somehow putting it in our water supply is economically cheaper than just giving poor people fluoride treatment vouchers for free, and i'd be surprised if someone could cohesively argue this.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

US army uses pussy ops on US senators

[GORDO]

i don't think anyone is loling at the idea of not wanting to ingest it.

 

there IS an in between discussion and there has been for years, it is a controversial mater, but the controversy is not in terms of "is this a mischievous plan for mind control, manipulation and depopulation?".

 

as for your last point an argument could be, and i'm merely speculating here, that it is (a lot) cheaper in terms of public health policy to do this than having everyone on proper dental care. so it's your tax money that's being saved here. so that's why one could find it acceptable.

[Guest ezkerraldean]

but again that doesn't explain or give weight to whatsoever the necessity of ingesting it. Water is necessary for our survival. Fluoride is good for keeping our teeth clean, does nothing beneficial and it is potentially harmful (argue about the amounts all you want, it cant be denied that fluoride is a toxic chemical ) whatsoever when ingested. the only argument you can make is that somehow putting it in our water supply is economically cheaper than just giving poor people fluoride treatment vouchers for free, and i'd be surprised if someone could cohesively argue this.

 

but that's like saying that you shouldn't eat organic foods because they're fertilised with animal shit, and you don't know what those animals were eating and there will always be minute bits of animal shit still on the food when you eat it so you shouldn't really eat organic foods should you eh?

 

it's totally irrelevant that it's poisonous at (much much) higher levels. drinking wood varnish would be poisonous but we still have it on our furniture, regardless of the fact that it's undeniably inevitable that we'll end up ingesting minute amounts of it.

[chenGOD]

you've just established again that the only beneficial health effect from fluoride being in our water supply is for poor people who don't brush their teeth, so why again is the rest of the population supposed to find a toxic chemical in the drinking water totally acceptable? because its 'low level' ? that's not a good argument for why people should have no issues with it.

 

cause it's more expensive to filter it out for only poor households that can't afford dental care than to simply pump fluoride at non-toxic levels through the whole water system.

I'm all for keeping the population healthy, but keeping public costs down is also important.

[Guest fiznuthian]

 

i'll tell you what would blow any of your minds,

investigate the anthropological sciences and you will discover

that the occurrence of degenerative disease across the board in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations is pretty fucking close to not existent.

the populations that have either westernized or acculturated are now experiencing the works.

this fact is so pronounced that some scientists are looking toward our evolutionary history as a means

to determine what is going wrong with us, and big shocker:

adequate exercise and calorie counting just isn't enough to keep us from the fray.

 

 

There are at least two things wrong with your proposal. Contemporary hunter-gatherers have much lower life expectancies than people in modern society. The majority of degenerative diseases appear in later life, as a result we don't have much evidence whether or not the elderly suffer from degenerative diseases. Additionally, with degenerative diseases being so rare, the sample group of populations of hunter-gatherers is probably too small, and because they are generally genetic mutations, with an increased gene pool you would expect them regardless in diet. Diet might account for frequency of occurrence, but cannot be as yet equated to creation of the mutations (soil pollution definitely could, but we're talking about diet right?).

 

Doing some brief research we find the !kung in Africa to be lucky to live past 60 (only 20% of those ever born reach 60 as compared with 83% in modern society), and while "those who do live to age 60 are free from stress related diseases, ... more than half have physical problems that make them dependent on others".¹

Additionally there soon might not be any pure hunter-gatherer bands left to examine

"At current rates of change, within the next decade the few remaining bands of hunter-gatherers will abandon their ways, disintegrate, or die out...".²

"In both hemispheres most foragers eventually turned to food production. Today most foragers have at least some dependence on food production or on food producers".³

Finally, there is benefit to the species as a whole in growing into larger bands than hunter-gatherers, as we are more resilient to infectious disease. "As tragic modern experience with Amazonian Indians and Pacific Islanders confirms, almost an entire tribelet may be wipe out by an epidemic brought by an outside visitor - because no one in the triblet had any antibodies against the microbe. For example, in the winter of 1902 a dysentery epidemic brought by a sailor on the whaling ship Active killed 51 out of 56 Sadlermiut Eskimos, a very isolated band of people living on Southampton Island in the Canadian Arctic".⁴

 

For a sampling of Degenerative diseases and their typical onset ages, the following links:

Arthritis - predominantly elderly

Rheumatoid Arthritis - onset age of 40-50

Cancer - most significant risk is old age

Alzheimer's - Advancing age is a primary risk factor for the disease and incidence rates are not equal for all ages: every five years after the age of 65, the risk of acquiring the disease approximately doubles

Parkinson's - mean onset age is 60

 

 

 

1: Shostak, Marjorie - "Nisa: The Life and Words of a !Kung Woman". pp.287-288

2: Diamond Jared - "Guns, Germs and Steel". p.86

3: Kent as quoted in Kottak - "Mirror for Humanity" (6th ed.) p.83

4: Diamond, Jared -"Guns, Germs and Steel". pp.203-204

 

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a problem with diet, especially in the poorer areas (although the social issues that go into that are fucking immense) of modern society, but to think that just changing to a diet of hunter-gathering will solve many problems is not very realistic.

 

Actually it is very realistic as our ancestral species as well as our own by and large ate diets primarily consisting of meat, with plant food when available. _1,2,3,4,5

Much of our physiology supports this assertion that we are indeed omnivores with a heavy faunivore leaning (gut morphological studies, our B-12 requirement, the fact that our intestines produce carnosinase ₆, ₇, the apolipoprotein E ɛ3 allele ₈, our inefficient Vitamin A synthesis from plants ₉ whereas non-beta carotene Vitamin A is abundant in animal tissue)

 

Very few hunter-gatherer populations today are exceptions to this rule. Only 2% of modern hunter-gatherer populations derrive more than 66% of their energy from plants ₁₀ Even the !Kung you cited cease their Mongongo heavy diet out of season and turn to animal fat and protein for sustinence. Primitive people turn to meat because of its energy density and availability.

In the wild animal food the most efficient source of energy and protein, and foraging for plants is only effective when in season.

 

Humans are meat eating omnivores and the idea that vegetarian diets are healthier and that there isn't a serious problem with our food supply completely denies our extensive evolutionary history.

But this is really besides the point, which was that there are marked differences in the rates of degenerative disease between those who eat hunter-gatherer diets (whether plant or animal based) and modern agricultural diets laden with refined carbohydrates and grains. (if you're wondering why i don't trust grain scan the medical databases for dietary lectin research).

 

Yes it is true that the Kung are not likely to live beyond 60. It's really a moot point,

as this is typical of any hunter-gatherer population that has no access to modern medicine.

Think about it, there's numerous environmental factors at play, warfare trauma, infant mortality, etc all contributing factors to the low average life expectancy.

Unacculturated hunter-gatherer populations closely resembling paleolithic ancestors actually have an average modal life expectancy of 77 years ₁₁.

 

There are many anthropologists who studied hunter gatherers and documented the rarity of illness that affects us so greatly today.

I'm not suggesting degenerative disease doesn't exist among them, just that occurrences are rare, especially diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

A good overview of this with references can be found at http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml

 

But really what i'm suggesting with all of this, and making this relevant to the topic,

is that dangerous dietary ideas are being spread among the public by the government bodies who control our food supply,

the very people who are in charge of ensuring our food is safe, promotes health, and caters to the nutritional needs of children.

They are subsidizing agricultural products that are harmful to us physiologically and are in discordance with our genetic history as a species.

By making nutritionally empty food cheaper, nutritional food becomes scarce and even further out of reach of the majority.

You think its a mere coincidence that poor people will never buy grass-fed meats, organic vegetables, and fruits? And that they will continue to consume hydrogenated vegetable oils

and white bread?

Legislation made it so.

And that mother fucker Earl Butz made foul play of our food supply and now obesity is running wild, people's neighbors are croaking over from weak hearts and livers, hormones are being bludgeoned into dysfunction, and cancer is steadily on the rise.

 

It'll make you wonder..

 

 

 

 

1. Stanford CB & Bunn HT (editors), 2001. Meat-Eating and Human Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

2. Mann N 2007. Meat in the human diet: An anthropological perspective. Nutrition & Dietetics, 64(Suppl 4): pp. S102-S107.

3. Ungar PS et al., 2006. Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35: pp. 209-228.

4. Semaw S et al., 2003. 2.6-Million-year-old stone tools and associated bones from OGS-6 and OGS-7, Gona, Afar, Ethiopia. Journal of Human Evolution, 45(2): pp. 169-177.

5. Domínguez-Rodrigo M et al., 2005. Cutmarked bones from Pliocene archaeological sites at Gona, Afar, Ethiopia: implications for the function of the world's oldest stone tools. Journal of Human Evolution, 48(2): pp. 109-121.

6. Sadikali F et al., 1975. Carnosinase activity of human gastrointestinal mucosa. Gut, 16: pp. 585-589.

7. Lenney JF et al., 1985. Characterization of human tissue carnosinase. Biochemical Journal, 228(3): pp. 653–660.

8. Finch CE & Stanford CB, 2004. Meat‐Adaptive Genes and the Evolution of Slower Aging in Humans. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 79(1): pp. 3-50.

9. de Pee S, West CE et al. (1995) "Lack of improvement in vitamin A status with increased consumption of dark leafy green vegetables." Lancet, vol. 346, pp. 75-81.

10. Murdock GP (1967) "Ethnographic atlas: a summary." Ethnology, vol. 6, pp. 109-236.

11. Gurven, M and Kaplan, H. Longevity among hunter-gatherers: a cross-cultural examination. Population and Development Review 33(2), 2007.

[Siegecow]

But really what i'm suggesting with all of this, and making this relevant to the topic,

is that dangerous dietary ideas are being spread among the public by the government bodies who control our food supply,

the very people who are in charge of ensuring our food is safe, promotes health, and caters to the nutritional needs of children.

They are subsidizing agricultural products that are harmful to us physiologically and are in discordance with our genetic history as a species.

By making nutritionally empty food cheaper, nutritional food becomes scarce and even further out of reach of the majority.

 

You think its a mere coincidence that poor people will never buy grass-fed meats, organic vegetables, and fruits? And that they will continue to consume hydrogenated vegetable oils

and white bread?

Legislation made it so.

And that mother fucker Earl Butz made foul play of our food supply and now obesity is running wild, people's neighbors are croaking over from weak hearts and livers, hormones are being bludgeoned into dysfunction, and cancer is steadily on the rise.

 

I'm sorry, but there's a reason why the government subsidizes grain, because it's the cheapest and most energy efficient way to feed people. The idea that grains are significantly harmful to us is just ridiculous. Considering all the other chemicals we are exposed to in the 21st century, uncooked grains legumes and nuts are the least of our problem.

 

It may ultimately contribute to degenerative diseases, or cancer, this i'm not arguing. Suggesting that we as a species should attempt to replace much of our only carbon and nitrogen affixing food sources with truly massive amounts of methane and co2 belching livestock is foolish.

 

You can blame the government all you want for the poor's nutritional problems, but when you live in a society where you make your own decisions about what you choose to consume, the only thing preventing a kid from eating a banana instead of a bag of cheetos or whatever the fuck is just stupidity. People know when food is bad for them, when they're eating something that is unhealthy. Most of them honestly dont give a flying fuck. See what people try to buy with foodstamps: they dont give a shit about their diet or cancer.

 

I do appreciate the information, but as it stands, what youre suggesting is pretty much a yuppie lifestyle choice. The number of people that can benefit from this diet is truly in the minority. It is not something our government should subsidize, as it will use more energy, and cost more money to produce less food. It is not sustainable or practical for the global population, or the environment.

[chenGOD]

I'm not suggesting a vegetarian lifestyle, I'm suggesting the idea of our ancestors eating nothing but meat is ridiculous. Most hunter gatherer tribes include foraging, because hunting game is hard work. From the wiki article on the !Kung

The women provided most of the food by spending between two and three days per week foraging for roots, nuts and berries in the Kalahari Desert.[1]

 

With the increase in population, the quantity of meat necessary to sustain a meat-heavy diet would wreak havoc on the environment.

I do think there are too many carbs in the modern diet, but for most people, replacing those carbs with protein is nonsense - most people are not active enough to reap the benefit of that switch. What is needed instead is a reduction in overall calories with a similar balance.

 

And I actually read that Kaplan-Gurven study - to quote from the summary of results: "the average modal age of death for hunter gatherers is 72 with a range of 68-78 years". I have issues with the study, like why would they choose Howell's research for the !Kung and not Shostak's? (Shostak's work is the seminal work on the !Kung people)

 

 

24ourange - it's not that simple unfortunately - there is a wide range of problems with food distribution in North America, which has to do with demographics and urbanization - poor people in the downtown cores of cities for example - have little opportunity to shop for fresh produce, as distributors don't ship there (it costs too much money) and for the working poor, they don't have the luxury of going shopping elsewhere as they're busy working 3 jobs to make ends meet. See what people can buy with food stamps, you might at least rethink your statement a little.