Vegan agenda

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,933
Thanks for sharing the trailer but just a correction- this isn't brave, or a redefinition. For decades there's been top athletes and trainers who know the results of a plant based diet:

http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/the-fighter/
https://www.livekindly.co/top-vegan-athletes/
https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegans


Carl Lewis adopted a vegan diet in 1990. He says, "My best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet."
In Arnold’s “Encyclopaedia of Modern Bodybuilding” he actually tackles the difficulty of getting 100g of HBV (high biological value) protein from a vegetarian diet and concludes that it is a pretty tall order!

True, he didn’t say it was impossible, but “unlikely” was his view. On the other hand, having already built up, the weight loss accompanying a vegan diet (coupled with hard training) may well have given Carl Lewis a season where he could have got faster times.
 
Last edited:

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
Thanks for sharing the trailer but just a correction- this isn't brave, or a redefinition. For decades there's been top athletes and trainers who know the results of a plant based diet:

http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/the-fighter/
https://www.livekindly.co/top-vegan-athletes/
https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegans


Carl Lewis adopted a vegan diet in 1990. He says, "My best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet."
The first year-- that can be deceptive though. Some people may have been eating things to which they were allergic (or just didn't process well) and were unaware---> it isn't the vegan diet that is helping. On the upside, it could provide an opportunity to find out *what* it was he was possibly allergic to, so he could avoid it in a regular, healthier diet.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
That was before the poisoned GMO industry replaced natural plant life with unnatural plant life based on chemicals left over from the war machine. This isn't 1990. This is 2019. 30 years later.
In the US we have criteria that allow growers/producers to use the label "certified organic". Through soil samples and regular testing the guidelines are pretty stringent. Cross-pollination is a major concern, and nutrient depletion is verifiable fact, but I don't think 30 years is much on the scale of the science. I'll look into it more.

I know a few that say they don't believe anything is truly organic (or don't care), but to me it's a defeatist attitude.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
So I've been lacto-vegetarian for quite a while now except a brief period last year where I went flexivore. Honestly I definitely think that eating meat too much is destructive, but this thread's got me thinking about whether a little is maybe good for us. Not such a fan of this sv3rige guy, he seems just to want to cause controversy rather than bring about any meaningful discourse. However my researches led me to this book, which looks interesting:

Lierre Keith - The Vegetarian Myth

If it proves useful to you maybe buy it 'coz I don't think the author is super rich.
 

Undertaker

Established
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
159
That was before the poisoned GMO industry replaced natural plant life with unnatural plant life based on chemicals left over from the war machine. This isn't 1990. This is 2019. 30 years later.
Soil depletion is also a very serious issue that they don't want to talk about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
"It would be overkill to say that the carrot you eat today has very little nutrition in it—especially compared to some of the other less healthy foods you likely also eat—but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

“Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,” reported Davis, “but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.” There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.

The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphate-fertiliser-crisis-threatens-world-food-supply
"The world faces an “imminent crisis” in the supply of phosphate, a critical fertiliser that underpins the world’s food supply, scientists have warned.

Phosphate is an essential mineral for all life on Earth and is added to farmers’ fields in huge quantities. But rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places, posing risks to the many countries that have little or no reserves.

Phosphate use has quadrupled in the last 50 years as the global population has grown and the date when it is estimated to run out gets closer with each new analysis of demand, with some scientists projecting that moment could come as soon as a few decades’ time."
 

Vixy

Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,907
Soil depletion is also a very serious issue that they don't want to talk about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
"It would be overkill to say that the carrot you eat today has very little nutrition in it—especially compared to some of the other less healthy foods you likely also eat—but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

“Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,” reported Davis, “but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.” There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.

The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphate-fertiliser-crisis-threatens-world-food-supply
"The world faces an “imminent crisis” in the supply of phosphate, a critical fertiliser that underpins the world’s food supply, scientists have warned.

Phosphate is an essential mineral for all life on Earth and is added to farmers’ fields in huge quantities. But rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places, posing risks to the many countries that have little or no reserves.

Phosphate use has quadrupled in the last 50 years as the global population has grown and the date when it is estimated to run out gets closer with each new analysis of demand, with some scientists projecting that moment could come as soon as a few decades’ time."
YES! Soil depletion, yes. Even the bible -such an old book- talks about how one must grow one crop one year and then switch crops for the next and then let the soil rest. We dont do that, we just go, go, go! Its all about survival and money.
 

Omega

Newbie
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
1
Thanks for sharing the trailer but just a correction- this isn't brave, or a redefinition. For decades there's been top athletes and trainers who know the results of a plant based diet:

http://www.fuelforthefighter.com/the-fighter/
https://www.livekindly.co/top-vegan-athletes/
https://www.ranker.com/list/athletes-who-are-vegan/people-in-sports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegans


Carl Lewis adopted a vegan diet in 1990. He says, "My best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet."
Thank you for showing some light into this misconception, being healthy is something that depends on how well informed you are about what you eat and that also depends, like everything else, on how your own body works or reacts, so you need to know your body before starting to do certain things or talk to a nutritionist (what I did). I don't eat animals, only plants, and I have been doing so for more than 10 years; well, everything in my body is perfectly fine. I take my tests and make sure nothing happens to me, but anyways, I never stopped eating meat because I'd thought it was healthier (so blaming meat for that would be another misconception, as I think being healthy can be achieved by knowledge; so you can eat meat and be unhealthy as fuck and you can also be vegan and be unhealthy as fuck). To me it became part of my moral decisions, not something I wanted to do to live longer or to be healthier actually, not something I wanted to do to expect a reward. And everyone takes decisions based on morality; so do I. To me it works like this, and I say it again, to ME (so that nobody thinks I'm talking for everyone or telling anyone what their life should be based upon, I'd never do that): the same way I care about animals and how they value their own life as I do with mine, the same way I could never kill any animal to eat him because it always felt cruel to me (even when I was a kid, but I didn't know I could change the way I lived back then, and I do now), I concluded that I shouldn't pay anyone to do so for me so that I can feel better by not watching what actually happens. If I cannot kill an animal, I won't delegate that to another person either. I hope no one looks at me like a freak because I care about animals this way. I believe that nothing in this world is out there for me to take advantage of by force, the same way I believe I am not here for others to take advantage of. I believe everything is alive (including plants and even what we call "matter", as I know everything is a whole, a ONE) so by doing what I do I know I'm not better than anyone else, and that's one of the reasons why I don't like being called a vegan or being labeled as one. But I also think that the more complex an individual is, the more he is aware of his own identity and suffering, so the same way I see a human being more aware of himself than a chicken, I also believe the chicken to be more aware of himself than a bush or a plant. I call them spheres of consciousness. I am not more important than a wildflower as everything is equally important, if not, why would everything else be here the same way I am? But if I have to pick the wildflower to eat it or I have to slaughter a human baby to eat him, I will absolutely pick the flower because I know the "sphere of concioussness" of both are not the same, therefore the suffering won't be the same either.

I agree with most of you when it comes to the term, which is used in many ways I don't want to be engaged with, yet it's supposed to mean what I do, but it... doesn't. The same happens with feminism I guess. I could say I'm a feminist because I treat women equally as me, a man, but that's not what "massive" or "mediatic" feminism is about. So let's think of it the same way. I have friends who don't eat animals too, and friends who do. And they all know I'd never judge them for what they do in this case, the same way I don't want to be judged for the decision I made. Everyone has his ways to try to make this world a better place, I guess. As long as the intention is to be empathetic and compassive, then it's a matter of respect, period. And I know the natural law operates in another completely different way, I know animals eat each other every day. But then again, I don't think of it as their decision, because they have to kill in order to survive. It's an imperative unless they are herbivores and such, an imperative to live. And to think that if they do it then it's fine is dangerous, as in the wild there's also r*pe on a daily basis, mothers who kill their children to eat them, cannibalism and all type of behaviours I wouldn't find myself engaged to only because it's "natural", as I had to learn natural doesn't mean good, it only means that it is what it is. So in the end it's only up to me to decide how I live my life, but I certainly cannot take one single thing animals do (eating each other) to justify what I actually find immoral, and then try to ignore everything else they do that we don't do (because of obvious moral reasons, of course).

I'm not from the USA, I'm from Spain so I'm sorry for any mistake I might make when writting, I guess I'll present myself if there's a topic for that so that people know me a little better, and this way I also get to know others better. I don't eat animals, that's a fact and something I'm proud of (the same way I'm sure each one of you are proud of different things you've decided in your life or how to live it), but I'm not a "vegan" and I don't want to be associated with the term. Maybe because I'm aware there could be an agenda behind it, or maybe because the same way it happens with feminism, most of the times I find myself absolutely repelled by people who call themselves vegan and act like morons or like if they were superior to others because of it, as to me it means the complete opposite. If I'm that sensitive about animals, how can't I be sensitive about people? Why should I be rude to them and treat them with disrespect? So to me it's also strange when I see some kind of behaviours inside the "vegetarian/vegan" community and that's why I don't want to take part in it, because if they were doing it due to their compassion for animals which is what they claim, then they should understand that compassion goes towards everything, of course, people included... So when a simple term becomes that contradictory and absurd, I don't want to be labeled as such anymore. I am not better nor worse than anybody else. I simply made a decision that matters to me. The same way it matters to me to help people and that's why I don't quite get this new era of "me, me, me, me". We're all a whole. I don't seek approval or as I said, any rewards for what I do more than what it is.

Thank you for reading and I hope you accept me, I've been reading this site for a long time and I've been into independent journalism (now labeled as a bunch of "conspiracy theorists" so that it sounds more crazy I guess) for so long I don't even remember when I started to sense something was very wrong in this world we live in. I've been and I am also into reading a lot of occultism in order to understand better what they do and how does it operate. My blessings to all and each one of you. Peace.
 

Dalit

Star
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
1,911
Btw, vegan cheese is nasty! Basically, it's orange rubber that tastes like cardboard cut into cheese squares. I remember, in my foray into veganism, putting the cheese on millet bread (gluten free, not bad, high calorie though) with some Earth Balance butter (I still like that) and making fake cheese toast in the oven. With butter it was tolerable.
 

DevaWolf

Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
537
Btw, vegan cheese is nasty! Basically, it's orange rubber that tastes like cardboard cut into cheese squares. I remember, in my foray into veganism, putting the cheese on millet bread (gluten free, not bad, high calorie though) with some Earth Balance butter (I still like that) and making fake cheese toast in the oven. With butter it was tolerable.
But that's the point right? They're trying to make us eat industrial garbage like that and think it's healthy too!

Really I just don't get how all these industrial products are supposedly more climate friendly than food found on the earth as it is, like meat. I definitely don't trust this global veganism agenda.
 

shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,322
Soil depletion is also a very serious issue that they don't want to talk about.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/
"It would be overkill to say that the carrot you eat today has very little nutrition in it—especially compared to some of the other less healthy foods you likely also eat—but it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before.

A landmark study on the topic by Donald Davis and his team of researchers from the University of Texas (UT) at Austin’s Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry was published in December 2004 in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. They studied U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritional data from both 1950 and 1999 for 43 different vegetables and fruits, finding “reliable declines” in the amount of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C over the past half century. Davis and his colleagues chalk up this declining nutritional content to the preponderance of agricultural practices designed to improve traits (size, growth rate, pest resistance) other than nutrition.

“Efforts to breed new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability have allowed crops to grow bigger and more rapidly,” reported Davis, “but their ability to manufacture or uptake nutrients has not kept pace with their rapid growth.” There have likely been declines in other nutrients, too, he said, such as magnesium, zinc and vitamins B-6 and E, but they were not studied in 1950 and more research is needed to find out how much less we are getting of these key vitamins and minerals.

The Organic Consumers Association cites several other studies with similar findings: A Kushi Institute analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that average calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels 37 percent; vitamin A levels 21 percent, and vitamin C levels 30 percent. A similar study of British nutrient data from 1930 to 1980, published in the British Food Journal,found that in 20 vegetables the average calcium content had declined 19 percent; iron 22 percent; and potassium 14 percent. Yet another study concluded that one would have to eat eight oranges today to derive the same amount of Vitamin A as our grandparents would have gotten from one."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/06/phosphate-fertiliser-crisis-threatens-world-food-supply
"The world faces an “imminent crisis” in the supply of phosphate, a critical fertiliser that underpins the world’s food supply, scientists have warned.

Phosphate is an essential mineral for all life on Earth and is added to farmers’ fields in huge quantities. But rock phosphate is a finite resource and the biggest supplies are mined in politically unstable places, posing risks to the many countries that have little or no reserves.

Phosphate use has quadrupled in the last 50 years as the global population has grown and the date when it is estimated to run out gets closer with each new analysis of demand, with some scientists projecting that moment could come as soon as a few decades’ time."
The book I linked to goes into quite a lot of detail about the problem of topsoil. Basically the growth of grains which are annual crops (wheat, barley etc) rather than the perennials such as grasses causes a major depletion of the nutrients from the soil. Ploughing etc causes far more damage to the soil than the soil can itself repair. Vegans say we can eat grains instead of animals but growing grains eventually turns the land into desert.

Why do we eat cows? They are creatures which can eat cellulose i.e. grasses, which we can't eat, and turn the nutrients in the cellulose into something we can eat i.e. meat, milk. They also produce manure filled with good bacteria, their bones are sources of nitrogen which otherwise requires an extremely energy intensive process (Haber-Bosch) to produce in order to provide the necessary amount for the crops we are growing. Actually we are using huge amounts of fossil fuels in producing this and without fossil fuels wouldn't be able to sustain agriculture at anywhere near this degree of productivity. Which is to say that we're in an illusion, when the fossil fuels run out we can no longer feed ourselves, which inevitably means a reduction in population.

So basically grass-fed beef is a part of the solution to the ecological problem. Not grain-fed like we eat now, which is no good for the cows in terms of their health or us (again, grains are annuals, not perennials) Of course this would require a lot of land, but according to the book we can produce way, way more than vegetarian propaganda is claiming. What I mean is that they claim ten acres of land can only support two cows, which might possibly be the case with grain feeding. But grass feeding...

"By contrast, a ten acre farm of perennial polyculture in a mid-Atlantic climate could produce:
3,000 eggs
1,000 broilers
80 stewing hens
2,000 pounds of beef
2,500 pounds of pork
100 turkeys
50 rabbits"


Per year, that is. She also refutes some of the propaganda-statistics about water consumption for meat production and grain production. Also explains the long-term effects of irrigation, i.e. desert (see Mesopotamia... Or Lebanon where there actually used to be cedars...)

So I'm going back on the meat. I encourage anyone to read "The Vegetarian Myth" which has completely changed my whole perspective on this subject. Probably there are some counter-arguments but most of the logic in this book seems irrefutable to me.
 

Vixy

Star
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,907
Okay I'm getting paranoid. First they bring forth the whole vegan thing, now they go "Oh shit, that wasnt good" and after that .. -Human meat? "Its actually good for you!"
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
By contrast, a ten acre farm of perennial polyculture in a mid-Atlantic climate could produce:
3,000 eggs
1,000 broilers
80 stewing hens
2,000 pounds of beef
2,500 pounds of pork
100 turkeys
50 rabbits"
That list is both over and understated. But the premise is sound.
So I'm going back on the meat
yeah.jpg
Work your way up to bacon, otherwise you're "chasing the dragon", so to speak.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
So basically grass-fed beef is a part of the solution to the ecological problem. Not grain-fed like we eat now, which is no good for the cows in terms of their health or us (again, grains are annuals, not perennials) Of course this would require a lot of land, but according to the book we can produce way, way more than vegetarian propaganda is claiming. What I mean is that they claim ten acres of land can only support two cows, which might possibly be the case with grain feeding. But grass feeding...
im glad you posted this. i had posted something along the lines of what you said earlier this year, but i cannot find the post. if you believe in the whole climate change, having grass fed cows around will help sequester the CO2. and yes-- no one ever brings up permaculture and how would solve many problems. all of that cow manure is great stuff for the plants, and the chicken manure is even better.


eat meat if you like in limited quantities and always with a dark green vegetable (or chlorophyll) to absorb any toxins and youll be in fine health.
 

Undertaker

Established
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
159
The book I linked to goes into quite a lot of detail about the problem of topsoil. Basically the growth of grains which are annual crops (wheat, barley etc) rather than the perennials such as grasses causes a major depletion of the nutrients from the soil. Ploughing etc causes far more damage to the soil than the soil can itself repair. Vegans say we can eat grains instead of animals but growing grains eventually turns the land into desert.

Why do we eat cows? They are creatures which can eat cellulose i.e. grasses, which we can't eat, and turn the nutrients in the cellulose into something we can eat i.e. meat, milk. They also produce manure filled with good bacteria, their bones are sources of nitrogen which otherwise requires an extremely energy intensive process (Haber-Bosch) to produce in order to provide the necessary amount for the crops we are growing. Actually we are using huge amounts of fossil fuels in producing this and without fossil fuels wouldn't be able to sustain agriculture at anywhere near this degree of productivity. Which is to say that we're in an illusion, when the fossil fuels run out we can no longer feed ourselves, which inevitably means a reduction in population.

So basically grass-fed beef is a part of the solution to the ecological problem. Not grain-fed like we eat now, which is no good for the cows in terms of their health or us (again, grains are annuals, not perennials) Of course this would require a lot of land, but according to the book we can produce way, way more than vegetarian propaganda is claiming. What I mean is that they claim ten acres of land can only support two cows, which might possibly be the case with grain feeding. But grass feeding...

"By contrast, a ten acre farm of perennial polyculture in a mid-Atlantic climate could produce:
3,000 eggs
1,000 broilers
80 stewing hens
2,000 pounds of beef
2,500 pounds of pork
100 turkeys
50 rabbits"


Per year, that is. She also refutes some of the propaganda-statistics about water consumption for meat production and grain production. Also explains the long-term effects of irrigation, i.e. desert (see Mesopotamia... Or Lebanon where there actually used to be cedars...)

So I'm going back on the meat. I encourage anyone to read "The Vegetarian Myth" which has completely changed my whole perspective on this subject. Probably there are some counter-arguments but most of the logic in this book seems irrefutable to me.
Very interesting. It's pretty clear that they know full well about it and they're pushing the vegan agenda solely for population control, to reduce the world's population to a 9 digit number.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9982758/barrister-eating-meat-illegal-ecocide/
"The 77-year-old, whose clients included the Stephen Lawrence family and the Guildford Four, claimed livestock farming is destroying the planet.

He said of meat-eating: “It is not preposterous to think one day it will become illegal.

“There are plenty of things once commonplace that are now illegal.”

He is leading a “Vegan Now” campaign at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton. Experts claim the world’s top three meat firms emit more greenhouse gases each year than all of France.

Mr Mansfield said: “It is time for a new law on ‘ecocide’ to go alongside genocide and the other crimes against humanity.”"

Somehow this isn't "ecocide":
https://www.globalresearch.ca/on-behalf-of-monsanto-gmo-food-crops-for-ukraines-bread-basket/5397344
In late 2013, the then president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a European Union association agreement tied to the $17 billion IMF loan, whose terms are only now being revealed. Instead, Yanukovych chose a Russian aid package worth $15 billion plus a discount on Russian natural gas. His decision was a major factor in the ensuing deadly protests that led to his ouster from office in February 2014 and the ongoing crisis.

According to the Oakland Institute,

“Whereas Ukraine does not allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture, Article 404 of the EU agreement, which relates to agriculture, includes a clause that has generally gone unnoticed: it indicates, among other things, that both parties will cooperate to extend the use of biotechnologies. There is no doubt that this provision meets the expectations of the agribusiness industry. As observed by Michael Cox, research director at the investment bank Piper Jaffray, ‘Ukraine and, to a wider extent, Eastern Europe, are among the most promising growth markets for farm-equipment giant Deere, as well as seed producers Monsanto and DuPont’.” [2]

Ukrainian law bars farmers from growing GM crops. Long considered “the bread basket of Europe,” Ukraine’s rich black soil is ideal for growing grains, and in 2012 Ukrainian farmers harvested more than 20 million tonnes of corn.

Monsanto’s Investment

In May 2013, Monsanto announced plans to invest $140 million in a non-GMO corn seed plant in Ukraine, with Monsanto Ukraine spokesman Vitally Fechuk confirming that ‘We will be working with conventional seeds only” because “in Ukraine only conventional seeds are allowed for production and importation.” [3]

But by November 2013, six large Ukrainian agriculture associations had prepared draft amendments to the law, pushing for “creating, testing, transportation and use of GMOs regarding the legalization of GM seeds.” [4] The president of the Ukrainian Grain Association, Volodymyr Klymenko, told a Nov. 5 press conference in Kiev that “We could mull over this issue for a long time, but we, jointly with the [agricultural] associations, have signed two letters to change the law on biosecurity, in which we proposed the legalization of the use of GM seeds, which had been tested in the United States for a long time, for our producers.” (Actually, GM seeds and GMOs have never undergone independent, long-term testing in the U.S.)

The agricultural associations’ draft amendments coincided with the terms of the EU association agreement and IMF/World Bank loan.
 

DevaWolf

Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
537
Another thing is, since the government made saturated fat (and with that to an extent, meat) the enemy, obesity rates and chronic illness rates have shot up.
I believe sugar, that was used to compensate the lack of flavor in food when fat was banned is the real culprit in the current health 'crisis' as the government calls it. Only it's not a crisis, they planned it all along. And the vegan agenda fits right into this, as the advice has been a 'low fat, mostly plant based diet' since the beginning of these problems.

People about 50 years ago or more consumed a lot of fat, real butter, full fat cheese, meat etc but they ate a lot less sugar and rarely indulged in things like ice cream which about anyone has in their fridge by now. And they were leaner, and healthier.
There is plenty of research supporting my view, but the government doesn't endorse it because big corn/soy and big sugar are providing a lot more money to have their voices heard and that's what gets priority. It isn't truly about health, it's about money for the big boys in corn, sugar and soy.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
The book I linked to goes into quite a lot of detail about the problem of topsoil. Basically the growth of grains which are annual crops (wheat, barley etc) rather than the perennials such as grasses causes a major depletion of the nutrients from the soil. Ploughing etc causes far more damage to the soil than the soil can itself repair. Vegans say we can eat grains instead of animals but growing grains eventually turns the land into desert.

Why do we eat cows? They are creatures which can eat cellulose i.e. grasses, which we can't eat, and turn the nutrients in the cellulose into something we can eat i.e. meat, milk. They also produce manure filled with good bacteria, their bones are sources of nitrogen which otherwise requires an extremely energy intensive process (Haber-Bosch) to produce in order to provide the necessary amount for the crops we are growing. Actually we are using huge amounts of fossil fuels in producing this and without fossil fuels wouldn't be able to sustain agriculture at anywhere near this degree of productivity. Which is to say that we're in an illusion, when the fossil fuels run out we can no longer feed ourselves, which inevitably means a reduction in population.

So basically grass-fed beef is a part of the solution to the ecological problem. Not grain-fed like we eat now, which is no good for the cows in terms of their health or us (again, grains are annuals, not perennials) Of course this would require a lot of land, but according to the book we can produce way, way more than vegetarian propaganda is claiming. What I mean is that they claim ten acres of land can only support two cows, which might possibly be the case with grain feeding. But grass feeding...

"By contrast, a ten acre farm of perennial polyculture in a mid-Atlantic climate could produce:
3,000 eggs
1,000 broilers
80 stewing hens
2,000 pounds of beef
2,500 pounds of pork
100 turkeys
50 rabbits"


Per year, that is. She also refutes some of the propaganda-statistics about water consumption for meat production and grain production. Also explains the long-term effects of irrigation, i.e. desert (see Mesopotamia... Or Lebanon where there actually used to be cedars...)

So I'm going back on the meat. I encourage anyone to read "The Vegetarian Myth" which has completely changed my whole perspective on this subject. Probably there are some counter-arguments but most of the logic in this book seems irrefutable to me.
Alert to @shankara: Bro I think someone hacked your account. I know you've talked extensively about your practice of Buddhism and Hinduism... this person is impersonating you saying they're going back to eating flesh and blood!!!
 
Top