Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Our Brave New World Order's Dietary Wisdom

It's no coincidence that the vast influence of the multi-national corporations that produce and manufacture food products in this country have exercised their wealth and influence to pay for scientific studies, research, lobbying and extensive marketing to influence We the Sheeple into adopting dietary advice that is just as toxic to our bodies as is their propaganda regarding gender relations is to our families.

Blogger "agnostic" from Dusk in Autumn, has blogged as of late on the topics I've referenced before here regarding the low-fat/high-carb paradigm vs. the high fat, high protein/low carb diet that I believe is the optimal one for our human physiology. He recently started a new blog that dedicated solely to the topic of diet and nutrition, called Low Carb Art & Science.

His first posting "Did following the experts' diet advice make us any healthier?," offers a great timeline in seeing how the traditional American diet has been deliberately changed in the last half century, via the influence of the Agri-business, or BIG FOOD, industry and it's pernicious influence.

It all starts with shaping We the Sheeple's "Conventional Wisdom" about diet and nutrition...which makes us fooled into buying their products, mistakenly thinking their processed, manufactured junk is "healthy." This "conventional wisdom" gets propagated by "scientific studies" that get reported as proven facts...but when one reads the study itself, rather than the journalistic piece reporting on the study, one can see how the reporters conclusions don't really add up to the actual study...yet it's the reporters reported conclusions that in reality become the conventional wisdom.

First, the "News Report"

Animal fats linked to pancreatic cancer: Study

Researchers have linked high intake of fat from red meat and dairy products with increased risk of pancreatic cancer, in a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Sounds like the conventional wisdom we hear all the time in our media, and based on the advertising of all the various food products in all of our stores, eh?

But re-read that opening statement a little more carefully...that word "linked."

What does that really mean?

Is it not the scientists first mission to determine whether or not we have correlation by coincidence, or directly attributable causation? Either it's proven, or it's not. "Linked" is just a way of making you THINK it's been proven.

However, if one reads the rest of the article with a critical, skeptical eye...

Pancreatic cancer is fatal in 95 per cent of cases, and smoking and obesity are among the known risk factors, but scientists at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland said that previous studies into the impact of fat intake on pancreatic cancer had proved inconclusive.

The authors used data collected by the National Institutes of Health-AARP Health Study to analyze the diets of 500,000 people who had completed food frequency questionnaires in 1995 and 1996.

Participants were then followed for an average of six years to track a number of health issues, including pancreatic cancer. Of those sampled, 1,337 were diagnosed with the cancer – 865 men and 472 women.

The authors wrote: “We observed positive associations between pancreatic cancer and intakes of total, saturated, and monounsaturated fat overall, particularly from red meat and dairy food sources.”

Food frequency questionnaires? That's IT?!?!? A research company tries to determine whether or not a widely consumed food (animal fat) causes cancer by using computer models to calculate probabilities based on people's self-reported questionnaires?

This is what we call "science?" I call it statistical manipulation to reach a pre-determined conclusion!

What happened to double-blind studies, using a control group and carefully observing the results to come to a reasonable scientific conclusion?

This is utter garbage! You're average person doesn't actually understand the difference between natural animal fats, hydrogenated animal fats, monosaturated, polyunsaturated and fully saturated fats.

Furthermore, many manufactured foods and fast food products will contain a variety of animal fats and vegetable fats. How the hell can they differentiate between them when the source of info is a QUESTIONNAIRE?!?!

Go look at typical brands of bread products in your grocery store...a good percentage of them will have paritally-hydrogenated (soybean) vegetable oil as an ingredient in your hamburger bun/hot dog bun/bread.

So if someone fills out their questionnaire that they ate hamburgers every single day for years...and they develop pancreatic cancer...how is the "scientists" supposed to ascertain whether or not the "animal fat" or the hydrogenated fats in the bread are the cause of the cancer?

Furthermore, studies on pubmed find that pancreatic problems associated with Diabetes are implicating daily refined sugar consumption as the primary culprit (Which is my belief probably the much more common denominator of pancreatic cancer than animal fats). Everytime you eat fast food, restaurant food, or convenience food, you are not just simply getting "animal fats." You are also eating polyunsaturated vegetable oils (usually rancid to boot), partially hydrogenated oils, as well as a host of laboratory created additives, preservatives and sweeteners.

Take your typical value meal at a hamburger fast food joint. It will contain saturated fats from the hamburger, partially-hydrogenated soy bean vegetable oil in the bun, rancid, poly-unsaturated vegetable oil for the deep fried french fries, not to mention copious quantities of corn syrup sweeteners and additives in the soda and condiments. If you are eating fast food, restaurant's meals, convenience food, etc., your meal will contain a variety of both animal and vegetable fats in it.

How the hell is a self-answer supplied questionnaire supposed to be able to adequately account for that?

It can't. Which is why the rest of the article is loaded with caveats and weasel-ly language.

They added: “We did not observe any consistent association with polyunsaturated or fat from plant food sources. Altogether, these results suggest a role for animal fat in pancreatic carcinogenesis.”

The reason for this could be connected to the role the pancreas plays in excreting enzymes that digest fat, they suggested. The authors also noted that studies have linked saturated fat consumption with insulin resistance, and that diabetes and insulin resistance are risk factors for pancreatic cancer.

However, an accompanying editorial questioned whether the increased incidence of the cancer could be reliably attributed to higher meat consumption, saying that “other dietary or lifestyle preferences associated with meat consumption” could also have a role.

No shit, Sherlock.

The editorial added that the study was “well-performed and a good addition to the understanding of pancreatic cancer.”

Source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

This is how " dietary conventional wisdom" starts.

After bilge like this gets reported on the news, people everywhere get all concerned about that evil demon, ANIMAL FAT.

This infects We the Sheeple's subconscious, so that we walk through the grocery store and load up our carts with all of those highly manufactured and processed food products (not food, FOOD PRODUCTS...big difference!), all with the prominent marketing labels of NON-FAT...LOW-FAT...LITE...FAT FREE... and you think you're eating healthy!

After all, these manufactured products contain GRAINS, and grains are FIBER...and:

...everybody knows "A diets high in fruit, vegetables and fiber that also limit red meat consumption, such as the Mediterranean diet, have been linked with longer life and lower rates of heart disease."

This, folks, is the exact phrasing used by public service announcements on the radio and TV, by groups such as the AHA, ADA, USDA etc...and it's no accident that such a phrase was used almost verbatim in this "news report."

Who was it that said, "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth..."

Fact of the matter is, if one looks at the source of this article, FOOD Navigator-USA.com, you will see an abundance of manufactured food product advertising and large, corporate agri-business companies logos and prominent products all over it.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to make the connection here:

The more BIG FOOD can make people think animal fats are bad for you, the more people will associate their NON FAT/LOW FAT/FAT FREE/LITE processed garbage as healthy food alternatives.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Misinformation Age

I remember while attending business school at the University of Hawaii, all of my Professors often referred to the late 90's up to the present as "the Information Age."

The explanation for naming the current epoch as such was the advent of the internet and the changing of the Country's economy from a manufacturing based one to one in which Information was the primary base for economic activity.

While there is some truth to this definition, I think those of us that have taken the red pill and see the Matrix of delusion that is our modern day reality, it would be far more fitting to call this the Misinformation Age.

So many business decisions, lifestyle choices, market dynamics, elections, government legislation and entire ways of life are now made on the basis of misinformation being accepted as conventional wisdom, and constantly reinforced by a mass media and pop culture deliberately and blatantly created for the mind control of the masses.

The Australian-based website, A Study of our Civilization, by Phillip Atkinson, has a page called:

How to Diagnose if a Community is Declining.

Consider the community's general attitude to truth; a civilization rises because it pursues truth, it falls when it suppresses truth. Our stance is revealed by the existence of popular delusions, whose absurdity has not prevented them from being adopted as truth by governments. The list of popular delusions include:
This is a pretty good list with links to detailed explanations of the misinformation that is now considered "conventional wisdom."

However, I believe Atkinson only touched on the tip of the iceberg. I find myself almost becoming paranoid in my cynical skepticism when I hear, read or watch anything being discussed in the public sphere.

I no longer accept at face value, a damn thing reported from any mainstream news outlet. Our doctors, medical community members, nutritionists, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, scientists, politicians, leaders, activists, teachers, professors, administrators, lobbyists, actors, celebrities...all the people in professions that are supposedly in the business of "HELPING" We the Sheeple, and supposedly advancing and growing the collective wisdom of human history to make our lives better are all compromised into serving in the roles of either deliberate malefactor or useful idiot for the social engineers that continue to strive to rule every facet of our lives.

Yeah, we are in the most technologically advanced epoch of human history. This, I think, is the basis for which I encounter so many people that are possessed of a humanistic hubris...that such technological advancement means we now live in the best, most advanced age of human achievement.

Like a bird distracted by the shiny objects, too many people fail to see how we've degenerated into a very real dystopia. Human beings in overwhelming numbers, now live isolated, stifled existences bereft of spiritual and emotional growth...psyche's permanently scarred by deliberately inflicted atrocities by our systems, institutions and government.

We now live in an existence for which the policy of providing bread and circuses in the ancient Roman empire to keep the masses distracted and mollified while their civilization declined all around them have now been reinstituted and profligated in innumerable ways... literally in too many ways to be counted.

But, when one with eyes opened to the realization of our modern existence takes a step back and tries to understand the true scope of it all, I think it really boils down to one very simple agenda...one concept that is truly behind the proliferation of misinformation and mass delusions:

Population Control.

To control how and what we think, what we eat, how we live, commute, speak, fight, fuck, procreate and reproduce, how we die. This is what the striving for power in our world is truly based upon.

We are programmed to value "the environment" over humanity. We are programmed to not form nuclear families, or if we have, to break it up via the machinations of the State system. We are programmed to deviate from the natural order of procreation, to accept deviancy as normalized behavior...to become disconnected from our fellow human beings, to cherish and nurture hatred in our hearts, to give over to the idea that we are an oppressed and vicitmized member of some sub-group that has a set of grievances that take precedence over every facet of our lives...so that we are permanently divided and conquered. These realities, these ways of thought indoctrinated into our mainstream consciousness by our mass media and institutions of education, are all nothing more than the symptoms of the population control agenda that is the very real paradigm of this, the Misinformation Age.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

We the Sheeple

I had an idea for a blog post, and I was going to use Jeff Foxworthy's "You just might be a redneck" schtick to castigate the cultural zeitgeist of our Brave New World Order. The first idea I had was this one:

"If you believe Obama will save the economy with his fascist, corporatist policies...you just might be a Sheeple"

However, while googling for some pictures of "Sheeple" to accompany my original post, I came across a blog that was far better at putting the same point I was going to try to make, in a more direct and pithy manner. Check it out: Votestrike.com: Sheeple on Strike

Today's teens are being attacked by popular culture like no other generation. Hollywood, the music industry, advertisers, and even the mainstream media are using their arsenal of tools to win the battle for our teens' hearts- and so far they are winning! In order to defeat our enemy, we must know how it thinks and understand the weapons it uses. It is critical that we realize how far-reaching the crisis is- and then we must work together to stop it.

This generation views 16 to 17 hours of television each week and sees on average 14,000 sexual scenes and references each year. That's more than 38 references every day.

This generation spends three hours a day online and is the first to grow up with point-and-click pornography. Almost 90 percent of teens have viewed pornography online at one of the 300,000 adult websites, most while doing homework.

More than 25 percent of teen-targeted radio segments contain sexual content; 42 percent of the top selling CDs contain sexual content

With more than $128 billion dollars in their pockets, this generation has been targeted by corporate America, who does everything it can to grow brands and profits without any regard to the moral decay of a generation.

Sheeple: You are free to do as you're told

FREEDOM OF PRESS: All media outlets owned by 5 Mega-Corporations. CNN controlled. CBS controlled. Fox controlled. MSNBC controlled. ABC controlled.

And that means your entertainment too.

Decades of controlled TV and radio indoctrination has brainwashed us into lifestyles and thought patterns of ignorance. Polls revealed that Americans know more about the Simpson's than the 1st Amendment. Most don't even notice when they shred or manipulate our rights.The two political parties have merged into one system. They have become a hybrid.

What exactly are they trying to conserve? Now both parties embrace both "big government" and "big corporation". Corruption, how is that good for "the people"?

Damn straight. This is how the social engineers of of Brave New World Order were able to effect the cultural changes of the last century. The advent of feminism was and is an artificially created ideology, indoctrinated into We the Sheeple. This is precisely how our modern day reality has been deliberately designed.

I've now reached the point where I hear the thoughts and ideas that people around me express, and I have to stifle making a visible reaction of visceral disgust. I literally hear the "B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a B-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a" in my head when I here some person repeating the tropes of our Brave New World Order's indoctrination cues.

Think Green
Go Green
Carbon Footprint
Environmentally Friendly
Global Warming
Climate Change
Equal Rights
Social Justice
Hope and Change we can believe in!
My body, my choice!
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
Men are Afraid of Commitment

It's ALL the mindless bleatings of brainwashed sheeple.

Don't be Sheeple.

Friday, June 12, 2009

A "Reasonable Feminist" on the Single Mother Baby Boom

Cathy Young, a self-described libertarian and "reasonable" feminist wrote an article recently, entitled: Single Mothers and the Baby Boom

I agree with most of her point of view...but I would still like to add a bit of my own commentary to her points, because she is still beholden to this idea that basic Feminism is a good thing, and that there is a "reasonable" form of femininsm.

IN THE past 10 years, with my biological clock winding down and no husband in sight, I have been asked quite a few times if I had considered having a child on my own. What used to be scandalous is now practically a conventional life choice.

Not quite...it's actually now a badge of honor, a point of pride. The term "single mother" used to denote a tragedy that was rather uncommon - an unusual divorce or unfortunate tragedy that resulted in a Father's death. Now it is the ultimate statement of "I'm a strong, independent woman! I don't need no man to raise a child! My child will be perfectly fine, he or she has all the LOVE they need from me!"

This attitude is not "Practically" a convention in today's Brave New World Order...it IS the convention.

As Cathy Young notes:

This is borne out by a new report released recently by the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly 40 percent of all babies born in the United States in 2007, up from 34 percent in 2002 and 18 percent in 1980, were born to unmarried women. While unwed childbearing is much more common in black and Hispanic communities, the trend cuts across racial lines; moreover, it is driven primarily by women in their 20s and 30s, not teens. Should we treat single motherhood as "the new normal" or as a problem that needs to be addressed? And what about the fathers?

Why yes Cathy, it IS the "new normal." And what about the fathers? Under the current legal system and social mores, the father is merely a sperm donor and wallet. Nothing more, nothing less.

For some, the growth of single-mother families is a sign of female empowerment.

If this is true, than we must look at the entire equation, now don't we?

REMEMBER: Female empowerment = Male Dis-empowerment.

The growth of single-mother families is a sign alright...the sign of decline!

If children without fathers fare worse than children in two-parent families, say defenders of single mothers, the answer is better pay for women and better social programs. Yet even in Sweden with its generous welfare state, a major 2003 study found that children raised in single-parent homes were at significantly higher risk for addictions and serious psychiatric problems.

That's because society is sexist! Single mothers are discriminated against, and men still make more money than women in the workplace, therefore single mothers are oppressed and cannot provide for their children like they should be able to if society wasn't so misogynistic and oppressive!

In discussions of single motherhood, men tend to be the missing piece. The fathers are often presumed to be feckless, self-centered rogue males. The reality is not that simple.

Nah, Cathy, it IS that simple. In the age of male dis-empowerment, women CHOOSE what kind of men that donate sperm for their bastard offspring. And since the males of our current culture have been dis-empowered from the role of Head of the Household, woman no longer select the Father's of their potential children based on character traits that would make for a great "head of house." Nah, the only determinant for who these ladies make judgment on who has the privilege of impregnating them, are the guys that "excite" them. Feckless...self-centered...ROGUE!

Mrs. Young, you need clarity on this issue. Try and read some of Dr. Amneus' writings, like the Garbage Generation and the Case for Father Custody. You would see that this is PRECISELY the conditions of the Matriarchal kinship system. When the male role is defined as nothing more than sperm donor to the Matriarchal system, men become human animals that do nothing but fight, fuck and live for nothing but the pursuit of their own hedonistic whims.

Even if most mothers had adequate support from family and community, single motherhood would still leave a large percentage of men virtually disconnected from family life and the next generation.

Would?! It can and it DID! Look no further than ANY inner-city ghetto USA, that is precisely what you see: ghetto thugs disconnected from family life, living only to fight gang wars, commit crimes against society and end up dead, or incarcerated...but not before they have numerous children with other single mothers, creating the so-called "cycle of poverty."

And, for all the talk of female autonomy, this is startlingly at odds with the goal of feminism, which sought equality for women and men in both public and private life.

No...that's the "goals" of feminism that have been used to turn otherwise conservative valued women such as yourselves into useful idiots for what was nothing more than a marxist movement to destroy the nuclear family. There was NEVER anything "reasonable" about feminism, and the "goals" have ALWAYS been to destroy the role of the family as the building blocks of society, so that the new, socialist utopia could be created.

Today, we have two contradictory trends. Millions of fathers are involved in hands-on child care to an unprecedented degree; millions of children have little or no contact with their fathers. Ironically, the mother-child family unit takes us back to a very pre-feminist idea: family and child-rearing as a feminine sphere. (For both biological and cultural reasons, men are far less likely to parent on their own.) Male alienation is another likely result.

Likely? Wake up dear, it's already here!

The causes of the rise in unwed childbearing are as complex as the phenomenon itself. The economic and social pressures that used to propel people into marriage no longer exist; even Bristol Palin, the daughter of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, a conservative Christian, can opt out of marrying her baby's father without opprobrium. Expectations of love and emotional satisfaction in marriage are much higher than they once were. Gender roles are in flux. In today's economy, working-class women often have better job opportunities than men, yet men's marital desirability is still linked to the traditional notion of the "good provider."

Oh, the cause for the rise in unwed childbearing is not "complex" at all. Have you ever read "Brave New World?" That's our current reality today! We are now in our second and third generation of citizens indoctrinated and brainwashed by our media and our educational system into adopting these attitudes you are pointing out here. You can include yourself amongst your examples as proof...afterall Cathy, you think you're some kind of "reasonable feminist."

Judging personal choices is tricky; while I strongly believe in the importance of fathers, I cannot be sure what choice I would have made if children were a higher priority for me.

This is just obtuse and asinine! You cannot be sure? This is sickening! Cathy has written a raft of articles on the pathologies of the rise of the single mother household...yet she can still write a rationale for more of the same!

Let's translate this sentence into "Reasonable Feminist-Speak": I cannot be sure what choice I would have made if fulfilling my own selfish desires were a higher priority than my children's needs for a Father.

Certainly, many single parents do a wonderful job of raising their children and many married couples do not. But in general, the two-parent family does work best for children, women, and men, and marriage seems the best way to ensure it. No one wants to go back to the day when unwed mothers and their children were outcasts.

Nobody? I for one would like to. While I feel terrible for the outcast mothers and children who would suffer from the return to societal approbation and rejection of illegitimacy, we would have FAR LESS children being born in that condition in the first place. Better for a few to suffer, than the widespread breakdown of civilization we are now witnessing in the age of Male dis-empowerment!

But restoring a cultural commitment to married parenting is a goal that should unite sensible conservatives, sane fathers' rights advocates, and reasonable feminists.

To which the "Reasonable" Feminist misses the forest for the trees.

You can't "restore a cultural commitment" until and unless you Re-empower males and the role of the Father as Head of the House.

But than, that wouldn't be "reasonable." That would be sexist and misogynistic! And no "reasonable" person today would want that, eh?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Character of Nations

I've often contended that while I myself am not a religiously active person, I still believe our country was a much better, much more civilized society when it was still a predominantly Christian country. Christianities focus on strong, Patriarchal families and a code of morality that was largely homogeneous across different Christian denominations (the 10 commandments) are cultural norms that are the impetus for the creation of what eventually became the most powerful country in the world.

The loss of that shared, Christian-based morality has been one of the biggest reasons why the USA is on a steep decline in civility, peace and prosperity.

Thomas Sowell makes an important point in his most recent column, a review of a book entitled The Character of Nations:

While nations differ, particular kinds of behavior produce particular kinds of results in country after country. Moreover, American society in recent years has been imitating behavior patterns that have produced negative-- and sometimes catastrophic-- consequences in many other countries around the world.

Among these patterns have been a concentration of decision-making power in government officials, an undermining of the role of the family, a "non-judgmental" attitude toward behavior and a dissolution of the common bonds that hold a society together, leading to atomistic self-indulgences and group-identity politics that increasingly pits different segments of society against each other.

Sowell couldn't have put it any more succinctly. The only part he's missing is that these changes have been done purposely by the power elite who have been effectively socially engineering these changes quite deliberately for quite some time now.

The character of this nation has been radically altered in the past half-century:

From a Christian-based morality that permeated pop culture that sought to uplift humanity and promote charitable behavior and love for your fellow man to the current secular/humanist based culture focused on hedonism and selfishness.

From a society made up largely of Nuclear Families to one in which the majority of people are either from broken homes or never get married in the first place.

From a civilization that valued masculinity AND femininity to one that denigrates masculinity in men and defines femininity by how masculine a women can act.

From a society of strong work ethics, pride in fierce independence and fiscal responsibility to one of Government dependency, a lack of personal responsibility and debt slavery.

In short, the nation is in decline, because our national character has declined.

ADDENDUM - Apropos to this post, I just came across this list of 10 statements made by in 1942 by a Presbyterian minister named William J. H. Boetcker:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10 You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

This list accurately attests to the very change of the character of this nation that I referred to. It seems as if in every single one of these statements, we are now a Nation that embraces the policies and actions that are the complete opposite of each of the principles of this Minister's original statements.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

The Script Has Flipped

About 4 years ago, a group of friends of mine all made "MySpace" pages and talked me into making one. As soon as I put one up, lo and behold, I had a whole ton of folks I was friends/acquaintances and classmates with as a teenager and young college student found me within a matter of months. Some of these folks I hadn't heard from in over 10 years.

It was really cool to connect and give each other updates on what we've all done with our lives. Some of them were actually really good friends that I had lost touch with. I really dug MySpace at first.

But after an initial flurry of old friends re-connected, my page pretty much started gathering dust. I never updated it, and I never used it to go and find other people I was curious about. I just stopped logging on to MySpace entirely.

Yet, in the past 2 weeks, I've suddenly gotten hits...and messages. From ladies I went to high school with.

All of them can plainly see that my MySpace profile lists me as married, as well as photos of my wife and I on vacation and at events.

Yet, these ladies, are pretty much all either "divorced" or never married, and "proud parents" -- i.e. single mothers.

One told me she was coming back to Hawaii and she wanted to meet up with me. She was basically asking me to go out with her without my wife finding knowing.

Another tried to draw me into an online sexual innuendo messaging exchange.

Another wrote me a "confession" that she always liked me since high school, and that she really wanted to come back to Hawaii to see me.

Good lord, now I REALLY understand the reality of how women in their youth have all the sexual powers of attraction and manipulation...and how once they've been used up and damaged goods saddled with another man's baggage, they start to get desperate and nostalgic!

One of these girls was one who I had previously tried to ask out in High School and she almost laughingly rejected me.

Back when she was a "9" in school, a lot of guys wanted her bad.

Looking at her MySpace page, she put on 75 pounds, pumped out two bastard kids from two different fathers, and a lifetime of partying and smoking have definitely aged her face dramatically...

...and NOW she wants to come back to Hawaii and get together with me without telling my wife!

Yeah, right.