“The Truth About Vegans….”


I’ve been commenting/ replying to comments on this video, and thought I’d share some of the comments on my blog.

This first was a reply to SogMosee in a thread about factory cloning of meat which would replace breeding animals for their meat (which is also the only way to get enough fertilizer to grow plants, in the long term, since phosphate is a finite resource; so synthetic fertilizer is finite too.)

Do you still believe Ancel Keys?
Btw you need cholesterol for your brain; and dietary cholesterol does not affect your cholesterol level. Cholesterol fear mongery has all been debunked. Read Teicholtz Lustig, etc.
This is the reason factory cloning is undesirable; they’ll tamper with the food supply, “to remove harmful compounds” thereby ending up killing/hurting people, because they grasp any pseudo-scientific justification to justify legally imposing their will on others.

Also, veganism ain’t durable, because the soil will deplete, and the phosphate mines will run out as well so no more artificial fertilizer until you put dung on the fields. Vegans hate it when you say that, coz they claim the monopoly on terrifying catastrophic warnings.

George Orwell They’re all howler monkeys; typically leftist (“anti-racist”, “anti-pollution”, “climate-“) activists that are geneticaly preprogrammed to make hellish noise, just like the Latin American Simia Belzebub. So I can’t even get angry with them; it’s the genes they’re made up of, expressing themselves, they can’t help it. So the best thing all around is to deny them a platform. (politics)
Have you ever heard Vibnie Tortorich, America’s angriest trainer? he doesn’t really like vegans (for the same reasons). He’s going to make the fatdocumentary.com to try and fix dome of Keys’ damage.
If people woyud be eating enough fat instead of carbs/grains, there’d be less obesity, less diabetes.
Try and keep upyour righteous indignified superiority now; it hurts the planet’s chance to support live, it hurts thechances of the living to stay alive and not die a horrible death from diabetes, after an unpleasant (unfulfilling) live as a diabetic…
They’re the same kinds of people that protest CO2-emissions; also baseless (CO2 as high as it is now, enables the planet to feed 7 bln people; plus the only way to achieve the UN’s millennium goal of providing enough water to the people, is to facillitate photosynthesis, by emitting enough CO2. Because: plants keep open pores in their leaves until they’ve breathed in enough CO2. Water evaporates out through those pores, causing the poor farmer to have to make the choice between his family dying of hunger or of thirst.


Brood en spelen

Ik wou dat mensen eens ophielden zich gek te laten maken over moslims, want dat is alleen maar afleiding terwijl de elite het land de afgrond in dauwt.
De elite, dat zijn niet alleen de socialisten, maar ook Wilders (is ook hartstikke links, maar mss geen socialist)
Ik weet niet wat Wilders zijn economische ideologie is, zal vast veel centrale planning behelzen (dat is nu eenmaal de norm in het democratische volkskoninkrijk Nederland), maar Wilders volgt de NAVO op de voet: die wilde na de val van de muur blijven bestaan, en heeft dus dolenthousiast 11 september aangegrepen als smoesje om heel Arabië aan te vallen en daarna ook Perzië om het belastingslachtoffer te doen denken dat de NAVO nog wel nodig is. Zie Wesley Clarke: 7 wars in 5 years. Want het is onmogelijk om van politieke instellingen af te komen, zogauw die opgericht zijn. En wat is de NAVO anders dan een politieke instelling?

  • Betaald van belastinggeld
  • Geen enkele burger heeft er invloed op
  • Hyperagressief
  • Niet in staat/bereid om voor de burger op te komen

Driving cycle one crazy

There was a whole fuss about fuel consumption figures in brochures not being feasible on the road.
This should be of no concern, because if you use the consumption figures to compare cars, you could still buy Tlthe most frugal of the two. This meant that the consumer would still be best of. But: that was of no concern to the state (that after all does not care about the citizen), because the state wanted to base the degrees of punishment of individual citizens, on the fuel consumption (CO2-emmission)of the vehicle they foolishly chose to drive. Ideally they wanted to chose the vehicle the citizen was going to drive also. Even more ideally, they’d like to force the citizen out of any car at all, but that’s another subject entirely.
And to get away with the excessive punishment regime they were hoping for, they developed the New European Driving Cycle. That could generate more accurate & representative fuel consumption figures and allow more differentiated punishment, under the guise of stimulating more desirable behavior.

Over Trump en het akkoord van Parijs

Als het klimaatakkoord van Parijs iets heeft aangetoond, dan is het wel, dat overheden niet in staat of bereid zijn, om iets aan de uitstoot te doen. Zo weigert Den Haag al een halve eeuw lang om de files op te lossen. Kyoto stamt al uit 1992, het akkoord in Parijs uit 2016: 24 jaar verschil! Een kwart eeuw! En nog blijven ze het uitmelken, wat aantoont dat de politiek geen enkel gevoel van urgentie ervaart om het op te lossen. Laten we dan naar aannemen dat het ook geen echt probleem is, maar alleen maar het grootste bedrog sinds… 1917. Als de uitstoot nu nog te hoog is, dan komt dat doordat de politiek dus niet te vertrouwen is met serieuze zaken. Of de uitstoot is al afdoende verlaagd, in welk geval Trump groot gelijk heeft om uit het akkoord te stappen. Lees meer over klimaatbescherming: https://bit.ly/2qZrU3C
Maar alle landen die Kyoto hebben ondertekend, waren totalitair, en hadden dus alle kans om hun uitstoot te verlagen en hebben dat dus opzettelijk niet gedaan.

Why Gun Control Doesn’t Explain Australia’s Low Ho

I’ve just just watched “Jim Jefferies : BARE” on Netflix
Funny! But there was something he was wrong about: he has a funny bit about gun control, where he utterly fails to mention that proper gun control is using 2 hands. He mentions a drop in gun violence after the ban, which this page disagrees with: https://mises.org/power-market/why-gun-control-doesnt-explain-australias-low-homicide-rates

DPRK should not be boycotted

Of course the Juche-regime of North Korea must disappear, what it does to the people is unacceptable. But a boycot of North Korea is a preposterous idea, for the folowing reasons:

1. It would only reinforce the regimes’s torturing of the people, or helping the dictators achieve their goal faster (their goal being the slow and painful extermination of the North Korean people). Just as the boycot of Iraq did not get people to rise up against the notorious-dictator-with-torture-chambers. It’s hard to rise up when starving and unable to get medical treatments (and affraid of the secret police).

2. Historical perspective: the US’s boycot of Japan resulted in the massacre of Pearl Harbor and the pacific theatre. Japan would likely not have been stimulated/inspired to invade and occupy e.g. Indonesia (which was already being ocupied there and then, by Dutch colonialists, giving the emperor the excuse of “liberating the colonies”). Many women/girls were used as comfort-girls (aka sex-slaves), they were obviously innocent victims.

The fact that in spite of these well known historical objections, there is still talk of boycotting the Population of North Korea., atthe very least, proves a lack of imagination of thise that claim to be suitable leaders is unsettling (and proof of unsuitabilty).

My solution to the Juche regime,  would be to make the world so much richer (by using capitalism… whay else?) that North Korea will simply shrivel away. And because that takes a lot of time – prolonging the suffering of millions of innocent citizens, one might consider a CIA assassination plot. Killing the devil you know, replacing with the devil you don’t. Causing who knows what sectarian strife there, and possibly bringing the world closer to nuclear war. With deepest regret, I must say that sacrificing the North Korean victims is probably the best solution to the Kim Il-whichever problem.

If the Paris accord ain’t binding

then why all the fuss about Trump withdrawing from it?
Ps the why in the question is superfluous: the Paris climate accord truly, genuinely isn’t binding.
Revealing an inconvenient truth about the why of this whole climate business: it isn’t about doing the right thing for the greater good, sacrificing the citizens’ chances for the future of the planet. No: it’s about boasting about how good they are, how much effort they put in to protect the precious, darling climate. And hoping that this will rub off on converting people into believers. Again, not because they care about the object of belief, which they don’t do. They just want the people to belief, what with the ongoing loss of Christian belief in the west. This also helps explain the push to lure muslims. They come pre-packaged with a handle on their day-to-day behaviour. But just in case the muslim-solution to crowd control misfires, there’s the religion of Gorism to keep us busy.
Back on topic: why the not-binding #Paris-agreement proves the #IPCC-hypothesis is bunk: surely, if they actually cared about the climate, they would put aside their petty differences and reach an agreement. They have proven to rank the importance of climate policy higher than the people’s interests (by not believng in the hypothesis and still makig the people suffer from their climate policies), so don’t give me any excuses about the governments not wishing to adopt certain impopular measures. Because as governments have extensively indicated, they exist solely to impose impopular measures.
So, it is now clear that they don’t believe a word of it. Then; stop it, already!

This is all political theater, just like the terrorist campmaigns are political theater