Turkeys are our friends

[Arthur Guy]

The comment made at the end of this artical (Turkeys are our friends) could only be made by someone who has no conscience. SOTT comment:- "While we appreciate the necessity for persons with type A blood to stick mostly to a vegetarian diet, we here at SOTT still prefer turkey". You people are always ranting on about freedom but then you take this precious freedom away from the animals. Freedom is for all beings not just your species, the amount of suffering you meat eaters cause to this Planet is disgusting. No one needs to eat animal products, in fact the human body is designed to eat vegetal matter which just goes to show how low the human race has sunk. Freedom is for all.

 

[Laura]

What about the broccoli? Don't you think it hurts broccoli for you to eat it?

More than that, your ignorance of human physiology is staggering.

Just for starters, the transition from "hunter-gatherer" to "agriculturalist" is considered to be one of the great "revolutions" or evolutionary steps of mankind. But is it necessarily so? Richard Rudgley noted in his book "The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age" (New York: The Free Press, 1999) p. 8:

The study of the sample of skeletal remains from South Asia showed that there was a decline in body stature, body size and life expectancy with the adoption of farming. ...Of the 13 studies, 10 showed that the average life expectancy declined with the adoption of farming.

"Unfortunately, everything the experts tell us about diet is aimed at the whole population, and we are not all the same."
-The Scientist, Sep. 22, 2003

To be better informed, you should get a copy of Eat Right 4Your Type. It is widely available.

Reading ER4YT will help you to become familiar with the science behind the Blood Type Diet. You will learn :

How blood type influences digestion, and why different blood types have different strengths and weaknesses.

How anthropology has shaped the characteristics of each blood type.

How lectins in the diet often determine what foods are good or bad for a particular type.

And why it is that people with type O blood must eat meat to function at optimum levels.

I should also like to point out that you would probably feel right at home with Adolf Hitler who was a vegetarian and anti-smoking campaigner.

But, on to the most fundamental issue: to what do you give your attention?

I think it is far more important for all of us to find out what diet and personal regime helps us to function at the highest levels so that we can devote ourselves to the most important task of ending the suffering of millions of people on the planet. If you have the energy to rant about a turkey, then you certainly have enough energy to devote to exposing Israel's genocide of the Palestinians.

So, get on with it. Do something important for a change, and stop making a fool of yourself with ridiculous rants based on nonsense.

 

[Joe]

The comment made at the end of this artical (Turkeys are our friends) could only be made by someone who has no conscience. SOTT comment:- "While we appreciate the necessity for persons with type A blood to stick mostly to a vegetarian diet, we here at SOTT still prefer turkey". You people are always ranting on about freedom but then you take this precious freedom away from the animals. Freedom is for all beings not just your species, the amount of suffering you meat eaters cause to this Planet is disgusting. No one needs to eat animal products, in fact the human body is designed to eat vegetal matter which just goes to show how low the human race has sunk. Freedom is for all.

Arthur,

from your comments it would seem that you are a vegetarian, which means you eat plants. If you are not already aware of it, you will no doubt be alarmed to hear that there is strong evidence to suggest that plants are in fact sentient beings and feel pain when eaten by other animals, which includes you and I.

You may now be feeling somewhat disgusted with yourself as a Homo Sapien that is specifically "designed to eat vegetable matter" and does so with relish (or your favorite condiment), and as a result, you may even be questioning whether or not you, as a plant-eating member of the human race, can possibly have a conscience.

My advice is, fear not. Here on the BBM, all life forms must eat others to survive, it is our lot, it seems. What you eat is not of great significance, but rather what you do with the energy that such feeding gives you. Do you use it to perpetuate the cycle of feeding, or do you use it to strive towards a different way of being, where feeding on other life forms is not necessary?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies", and all truth begins at "home". Blaspheme to yourself.

Joe

 

[Mr. Premise]

Well, predators have their freedom, too. (Can't help but think of Disney's dumb circle of life song, here!). But what if we are trying to graduate from 3D circle of life and the General Law of Organic Life?

Here's what I think: If people really looked at the increase in suffering caused by factory meat production (not talking about tribal hunter-gathering, or even pastoralism), it's kind of hard to justify. How can it not help to add to the food for 4D STS? All that 2D suffering or slaughter. Blood sacrifice to Yahweh?

Then, from a selfish point of view, the higher up on the food chain you eat, the more concentrations of industrial toxins you ingest.

And, there is a huge waste of energy resources and grain to produce a pound of meat protein. Not sure why people think it is so necessary, unless one is happy with 3D. When trying to conquer the predator, why eat predatorially?

Why not extend The Work to eating (don't forget to supplement with B12 vitamins, though).

And, as a vegan, I feel MUCH better physically today the day after Thanksgiving than I did when I ate meat and milk products.

But to each his or her own, I guess.

 

[Laura]

We have an entire page devoted to diet and health questions here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/diet.htm

Which includes the following:

07-30-94
Q: (L) Is vegetarianism the way we should eat?
A: That is concentrating on the physical. The body is not important.
Q: (L) Does this mean that to worry about the body in any way is wrong?
A: Close. Don't concentrate on life in the body. Concentrate on the spirit.

10-23-94
Q: (L) Is a vegetarian style of eating good for one?
A: Not usually.
Q: (L) What did human beings eat before the Fall?
A: Vegetarian.
Q: (L) So, until we go through the transition we are not really designed to be vegetarian?
A: Correct.

And then, there is this:

Q: (S) There is another question, if I get this house, I
noticed that there were bugs. I don't like bugs. At an
earlier session you talked about an automatic bug zapper.
I know it is not harmful to humans. But, I have a cat and
I may be getting a dog. Are they more susceptible to this
frequency of this device? Will it affect their nervous
system in the long run, or mine, or anyone elses?

A: Please be aware that in the state of being that you
currently occupy, and in the environment in which you
currently reside, as third density beings, there are many
environmental stresses upon your physical being, which you
often overlook. And, focus on any particular one is
rather pointless without focusing on the remainder. So,
therefore, perhaps it is wise not to focus on any at all
unless you wish to choose the other path, which is to
attempt to focus on all, and this can be most difficult.
So, as you are zeroing in, as it were, on one area, such
as electronic anti-pest devices, is understandable, but
rather futile unless you also wish to focus on food
intake, smoking, the pollutants of mechanical devices, of
sunlight, the thinning of the ozone, vibrations from sound
pollution and a myriad of other consequences that you
normally overlook and put out of your mind. It is not
necessary to become worried about any given environmental
occurrence.

Q: (L) So, it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Bug
spray, bug zappers, or bugs - take your pick.

A: Exactly. But the reason for the lengthy answer is to
stimulate reflection on a wider range of subjects of a
similar nature, rather than just a simple answer to a
single question.

And this:

Q: (L) What are the effects of sunlight on the human body now
as opposed to then?
A: Degenerative.

Q: (L) Does that mean that we should avoid sunlight because
we no longer have our [water vapor] canopy?

A: You cannot avoid enough to matter.

So, as Joe points out above, the bottom line is this:

What you eat is not of great significance, but rather what you do with the energy that such feeding gives you. Do you use it to perpetuate the cycle of feeding, or do you use it to strive towards a different way of being, where feeding on other life forms is not necessary?

Show me your vegetarianism and infinite concern for all life and I'll show you my works.

 

[Mr. Premise]

The irony, however, is that modern-day meat eaters are much farther away from a paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet than vegans. This is because hunter gatherers ate no dairy products after they finished breast-feeding, and ate very lean meat very occasionally. What they had to eat most days would be seeds, nuts, fruits and roots. Modern-day meat eating in wealthy countries is very much rooted in the neolithic revolution, eating daily large amounts of artificially fattened meat as well as processed grains. I don't know any meat eaters who eat a sparrow or a rodent once a week ;)

What about the broccoli? Don't you think it hurts broccoli for you to eat it?

More than that, your ignorance of human physiology is staggering.

Just for starters, the transition from "hunter-gatherer" to "agriculturalist" is considered to be one of the great "revolutions" or evolutionary steps of mankind. But is it necessarily so? Richard Rudgley noted in his book "The Lost Civilizations of the Stone Age" (New York: The Free Press, 1999) p. 8:

The study of the sample of skeletal remains from South Asia showed that there was a decline in body stature, body size and life expectancy with the adoption of farming. ...Of the 13 studies, 10 showed that the average life expectancy declined with the adoption of farming.

"Unfortunately, everything the experts tell us about diet is aimed at the whole population, and we are not all the same."
-The Scientist, Sep. 22, 2003

 

[Laura]

The irony, however, is that modern-day meat eaters are much farther away from a paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet than vegans. This is because hunter gatherers ate no dairy products after they finished breast-feeding, and ate very lean meat very occasionally. What they had to eat most days would be seeds, nuts, fruits and roots. Modern-day meat eating in wealthy countries is very much rooted in the neolithic revolution, eating daily large amounts of artificially fattened meat as well as processed grains. I don't know any meat eaters who eat a sparrow or a rodent once a week.

You don't know that hunter gatherers had no dairy products. Also, from the various archaeological studies I've read, they ate meat a lot more than "very occasionally." Also, a person following the blood type diet is eating a lot of nuts, fruits and even vegetables of various kinds. Also, in France, there is no "artificially fattened" meat and it is illegal to feed cattle grain loaded with chemicals, etc. Yeah, the meat is not so fatty and not so tender, but it is a lot better for you and the French experience a much lower level of the various diseases that Americans are heir to for these reasons. Also, the French eat a LOT of duck and rabbit and free range chicken and turkey.

I would agree that a person ought to minimize meat as much as possible if they live in the U.S. But for myself, being type O, I simply cannot get enough high level protein to function without meat almost every day. I am actually so sensitive to wheat and corn (or anything with wheat or corn in it) that if I eat it, my joints lock up and I am in pain for days until I clear it from my system.

In France, the amount of vegetables consumed is much, much higher than in the U.S. also. And there are about a dozen varieties of lettuce here so a salad with chunks of chicken, duck, turkey, or bacon tossed in it is a standard meal.

Fortunately, France is also very conscious of wildlife conservation, so there are a lot of wild deer and wild boar, pheasants, and other game birds and you can even buy venison in the supermarket during hunting season.

Like I said, a vegetarian diet is exactly right for Type A people, and sometimes type AB. But as with everything else, "one size" does not fit all.

 

[anart]

Of course one size does not fit all - we are here, in these physical bodies and part of the 'ticket price' we pay is the need to consume other forms of life, be they animal, vegetable or mineral, in order to keep our physical bodies alive. It's horrid, if you ask me, but, guess what - it's reality for this 3d realm. I've been a vegetarian for over twenty years and would never tell someone else that they are disgusting, cruel or even misguided for eating animals - for type O people, it is an absolute necessity to eat the protein that red meat provides, so to comment on the 'right-ness' or 'wrong-ness' of that is just incredibly short-sighted, to say the least.

It's the world we live in - it is the physical realm - it is simply the way things work here and this is where we are - we have to consume to survive - maybe one day we won't have to consume, at least in so crude a manner - and then again, maybe we will.

 

[joejoeba]

Eating Is so lovely though!!
I hope it is never abolished...Viva neolithico du jour!!

As a footnote, vegescary un's, It's almost a cliche but what about all the micro mites we continually consume, breath in and relish all day everyday? Choose what you do not what we do!

 

[Mr. Premise]

I agree that one size doesn't fit all. I am not an evangelist of vegetarianism. Being a vegan is also a privilege of affluence. When the economy crashes I will get the protein and fat wherever I can just like most people always have. Also, the rest of my family eats meat, and I am happy to cook meat for any meat eater who comes to a barbecue at my house!

No doubt French food is definitely healthier. They eat all kinds of things that, if you ate them in the U.S. you would not be anywhere near as healthy as the French. Like tobacco, the additives and the production process may be worse than the thing itself. My comments were about the meat eating I see in the U.S.

If hunter-gatherers had dairy products it would also have been very infrequently. Having lactating mammals around everyday, means you are already an agriculturalist. As for how frequently they ate meat and how much, that would probably vary from the extremes of those paleolithic groups that followed reindeer to ones in rainforests that had rodents and small pigs and fish occasionally. Those living by the ocean would have had a lot of shellfish.

The irony, however, is that modern-day meat eaters are much farther away from a paleolithic hunter-gatherer diet than vegans. This is because hunter gatherers ate no dairy products after they finished breast-feeding, and ate very lean meat very occasionally. What they had to eat most days would be seeds, nuts, fruits and roots. Modern-day meat eating in wealthy countries is very much rooted in the neolithic revolution, eating daily large amounts of artificially fattened meat as well as processed grains. I don't know any meat eaters who eat a sparrow or a rodent once a week.

You don't know that hunter gatherers had no dairy products. Also, from the various archaeological studies I've read, they ate meat a lot more than "very occasionally." Also, a person following the blood type diet is eating a lot of nuts, fruits and even vegetables of various kinds. Also, in France, there is no "artificially fattened" meat and it is illegal to feed cattle grain loaded with chemicals, etc. Yeah, the meat is not so fatty and not so tender, but it is a lot better for you and the French experience a much lower level of the various diseases that Americans are heir to for these reasons. Also, the French eat a LOT of duck and rabbit and free range chicken and turkey.

I would agree that a person ought to minimize meat as much as possible if they live in the U.S. But for myself, being type O, I simply cannot get enough high level protein to function without meat almost every day. I am actually so sensitive to wheat and corn (or anything with wheat or corn in it) that if I eat it, my joints lock up and I am in pain for days until I clear it from my system.

In France, the amount of vegetables consumed is much, much higher than in the U.S. also. And there are about a dozen varieties of lettuce here so a salad with chunks of chicken, duck, turkey, or bacon tossed in it is a standard meal.

Fortunately, France is also very conscious of wildlife conservation, so there are a lot of wild deer and wild boar, pheasants, and other game birds and you can even buy venison in the supermarket during hunting season.

Like I said, a vegetarian diet is exactly right for Type A people, and sometimes type AB. But as with everything else, "one size" does not fit all.

 

[Guest]

So, what are your views on eating humans? If you believe that your body cannot maintain homeostasis without the consumption of human flesh due to certain nutritional factors only found amongst homosapiens (or that you could only stomach the taste of human meat over animal meat), then would it be alright to consume? I agree that we are all different and require different things to function, but at what point do you draw the line and why?

 

[henry]

So, what are your views on eating humans? If you believe that your body cannot maintain homeostasis without the consumption of human flesh due to certain nutritional factors only found amongst homosapiens (or that you could only stomach the taste of human meat over animal meat), then would it be alright to consume? I agree that we are all different and require different things to function, but at what point do you draw the line and why?

The highlighted word is where your question breaks down. We are not talking about belief. The blood-type diet is based upon observation, data, and experiment.

If an O type eats wheat, corn, and potatoes, to name but three of the worst foods for that type, the effects are almost immediate, although that also depends on one's age. The older you get, the more of the toxins have built up and the less resistance you have. Therefore the effects are stronger and more readily felt. At least that is my experience.

You pose a hypothetical situation not based on facts and data.

 

[Laura]

So, what are your views on eating humans? If you believe that your body cannot maintain homeostasis without the consumption of human flesh due to certain nutritional factors only found amongst homosapiens (or that you could only stomach the taste of human meat over animal meat), then would it be alright to consume? I agree that we are all different and require different things to function, but at what point do you draw the line and why?

Frankly, I would prefer not to have to eat at all. Now and again, I do enjoy what I am eating, but most of the time, no. Since I don't eat so much for taste as to try to get the maximum number of needed nutrients as efficiently as possible, the question isn't relevant to me. I'm not talking about "belief", I'm talking about facts relating to functionality. I would probably even prefer a powdered supplement that gave me what I needed most of the time if I could find one that was reasonably priced. But, so far, I haven't found anything that is a good substitute.

As for someone deluded enough to "believe" that the meat must be of a certain type in order to provide the essential nutrients - well, that's just nuts. You can believe anything, doesn't make it so.

On the other hand, the work of D'Adamo shows that there are certain kinds of meat that do cause problems for certain blood types and should be avoided. Other types are indicated as beneficial to certain blood types, and still others are "neutral." I believe that pork is not good for any blood type and I have heard that it is closest to human flesh than any other meat.

I remember reading somewhere years ago that the domestic pig is a "created" critter - a hybrid engineered with human genes in there somehow. Might have been Cayce or someone like him who said this, so of course it is without any evidence. If, however, that is even remotely true, and it is also true that pork is not good for anyone, then that suggests that cannibalism is not a very smart choice just from the point of view of health.

Of course, cannibalism has been a way of life for many peoples throughout history. In some cultures, it was thought that eating a person allowed one to assimilate the qualities of that person. In some other cultures, it was the responsibility of the family of the deceased to eat their dead relative to "keep them alive." In some cultures, a mother was expected to eat her own deceased infant.

There are a number of interesting books on the topic including:

The Anthropology of Cannibalism
by Laurence R. Goldman

The topic of cannibalism continues to be emblematic of people's ideas of the "exotic other." In addition to its lingering cultural meanings, the continued interest in the topic stems in part from the history of controversy about methods, evidence, and inference patterns within anthropology and archaeology. This book looks at how and why cannibalism was actually practiced, both as part of a wider cultural system of meanings about reproduction and regeneration as well as how cannibalism as myth perpetuates political processes of stereotyping across cultures. Cannibalism exists in folklore traditions as the definition of the antithesis of socially accepted morality, as well as something that in practice was a conduit for the regeneration and reproduction of positive values. Cannibalism is seen as bound up with the commerce of exchange between people intent on defining their economic and political worlds in and through symbols. This book is a major milestone, providing a valuable set of correctives for both the academic discourse on cannibalism as well as the wider conventional beliefs about the topic.

The essence of certain views behind cannibalism - assimilating power - is even contained within the Christian mythos - the eating of the body and drinking the blood of Christ.

You might find Consuming Passions: The Uses of Cannibalism in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe to be enlightening:

Cannibalism is the breaking of the ultimate taboo. Yet during the later Middle Ages and early years of the Renaissance, mythological, historical, and contemporary accounts of cannibalism became particularly popular. Consuming Passions synthesizes and analyses the most interesting of those late medieval and early modern responses to Eucharistic teaching and debate that manifest themselves in the trope of cannibalism. This trope appears in texts as various as visions of the underworld, accounts of sacramental miracles, sermons, legal proceedings, and popular geographies. This book foregrounds the vexed role of the body in both late medieval and early modern religiosity, and the ways in which the boundaries of the endangered body in these narratives also reflect the rigorously defended borders of the body politic.

Then, of course, there is Cannibalism and the Colonial World

In Cannibalism and the Colonial World, an international team of specialists from a variety of disciplines discusses the historical and cultural significance of Western fascination with the topic of cannibalism. Addressing the image as it appears in a series of texts--popular culture, film, literature, travel writing and anthropology--the essays range from classical times to contemporary critical discourse. This group of literary and anthropological scholars places the discussion of cannibalism in the context of postcolonial and cultural studies.

"...Cannibalism and the Colonial World makes significant contributions to the critical analysis of key problems in current academic debates such as the political and epistemological authority of anthropology, the representation of otherness in classic colonialism and modern (neo)colonialism, different attitudes towards cultural influence and modernization, and the strong relations that the cannibal trope has with major postmodern topics like consumption, and the globalization process." Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies

Altogether an interesting topic.

Bottom line is: we aren't at the top of the food chain and I have observed that so-called "alien contactees" seriously promote vegetarianism. One wonders if this is not the equivalent of feeding the steer on corn - an unnatural diet for a steer - for a month or two before he is butchered. Of course, the contactees claim that their alien friends are here to "serve mankind." Well, maybe that's true...

 

[vinny]

Of course, the contactees claim that their alien friends are here to "serve mankind." Well, maybe that's true...

as in: "... on a platter, with gravy" ? (4th density gravy, of course).

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the insight Laura and Henry. I was just wondering if it would be morally the same to eat humans (not that I'd want to), animals, plants, etc. Would it matter in terms of developing ones being which one you ate/ate the most of? Does it make a difference whether the thing your consuming is more aware of what's happening to it on a physical level versus a spiritual/energetic level? I'm sure plants can feel things too but wouldn't it be more agonizing for a being to be cut with a knife where it severs their nerves which transmitts the sensation of pain to their brain rather than cutting a piece of broccoli which would not experience it in the same manner (I'm assuming it would not, but I don't know how it feels to be a broccoli on a physical level)? I guess killing a living being to consume is cutting the life force from the physical body either way, but does it matter if they experience it the same?