Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - colorles

Pages: [1] 2
Iguana, the Empire funded and engineered  the destabilization and coup in Ukraine.  I watched that happen from the start. That girl Victoria Nuland on video and on cell phone barking out the deeds... reporting on the billions of $$$ of funding to make this happen. Google: "victoria nuland ukraine"

Then Sen McCain actually going on stage in the Maidan protests in Kiev egging on the protestors... blatant... no need to be discreet nowadays huh? Google: "mccain ukraine maidan"

I monitor various propaganda and exposes from various sides by instinct.  It's a training I had growing up in martial law years.  Dig at the truth all the time.  Never let your guard down.

YS, good that you made a more elaborate reply this time... better than the absolute shill post at the start of this thread... although unsubstantiated by any supporting reports... maybe you could post those reports backing up the allegations you just made... you should also address the points raised by Putin instead of calling for a total dismissal of everything he said (super shill tactics).

In the meantime, how does this MAP of some US Bases surrounding Russia and China make both countries feel?  Comfy to sleep at night?

Wake me up when Russia and China start surrounding the USA with opposing bases.

Truth is something that resonates well with us health practitioners.  Empire MSM is nothing but lies upon lies for the various nefarious purposes.

My bet is always on the Empire.  Reading Guns Germs and Steel... there can be only one... the only thing the losing resisting countries can do is cry out and report the truth.

The problem with provoking Russia this way is that the idiots in the Empire can only provoke so far that the Russians may actually just call their bluff and decide to go with MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION... total nuclear war, launch everything... and all of us will be losers.

So if many more shills are reading this thread, me as the original poster merely posts truth the way I see it to prevent Nuclear War. Tell the warmongers in command to do it with a lot more finesse to prevent nuclear war.

if you also notice on the map, how Iran put its borders so close to NATO bases...

but to the bold, well that already happened in the 60's with the cuban missile crisis, and we all know how much america liked that...(and soviet actions there were only in response to NATO missiles in Turkey pointed at the USSR. the whole cold war really was the two factions vying for global leverage, meanwhile labeling the other the aggressor in their home medias)

bottom line: i wouldn't trust either faction, no more than anybody would trust the forces at work behind the western and eastern blocs throughout the previous century (and the actions and atrocities committed by both factions speak for themselves). that being said the israeli/al-saud/western coalition is the premier aggressor throughout the world in stirring up unrest and destabilization (and coincidently claiming innocence in there world media, and blaming it on everybody else...) at the moment, simply because they have the leverage to do so. should other factions gain such leverage, can't say for certain whether they would be any less sadistic and corrupt. it really depends on the moral character of the people involved, and of the people in general

whether or not the so called New World Order has "failed" is up for grabs, i'd say quite on the contrary. but either way if it is failing, the concept of "if i go down, everybody goes down" is in effect, its simply how psychopaths work (although of course not everybody would go down, its just a means of "starting over" for some, at the expense of all the cattle so to speak)

and this would be a way to do it (coupled with concocted wars and conflicts and everything else that goes along with it):


on another note, sad thing an elder relative of mine is going to be in the hospital soon...and by a few different factors it is being heavily pushed on me and some other families members to get a flu vaccination. i've been vaccinated before, when i was younger and had virtually no consent (after all you need them to go to school), but i am against it with everything i am. but hey at least they are not mandatory (sarcasm)

General Discussion / Re: Too long posts
« on: October 08, 2014, 07:21:24 am »
Colorles, could you explain your views in shorter wording? If everyone were writing such lengthy blocks of text like you do, we would spend all of our time in reading this thread.

Say a maximum with a minimum number of words… rather then a minimum with a maximum number of word, please. Otherwise, most won’t bother to read and care about what you wrote.

By the way, I stumbled upon this part in your tirades, which couldn’t be more wrong. You confuse science with religion!! (I didn’t take the time to read the rest, sorry.)

my posts are not that long. certainly not "tirades"

science is like religion in many ways. how many times over the centuries has something been "universally accepted as truth", only to be proven wrong later on? a simple example would be the earth formally being presumed to be center of the universe, the earth being flat, etc, really just as simple as that let alone getting into physics and such. it was a simple point i was making, nothing to really get into a considerable discussion over

but back to the discussion at hand, i brought up the malvinas/falkland islands for discussion, as a potential example of "ideal human climate" ie maritime, low fluctuating range of temperatures (not too hot not too cold), with access to both fresh water rivers and the ocean. i mean with everyone argueing the merits of cold climate adaptation vs warm climate adaptation, wouldn't somewhere in the middle all things considered seem more ideal, to everyone?

General Discussion / Re: do you eat salmon skin?
« on: October 08, 2014, 06:50:32 am »
alot of the good fats and oils are nearest the skin, i either just "slurp" on it like a walrus slurping clams or rip it apart with combination teeth/ hands and/or knife depending on which manner i feel like going about it (applies to all seafood really) and eat it all. the skin can be pretty tough, so you gotta go at it. but i don't always feel like eating the scales, hence why i just "slurp" on it sometimes

General Discussion / Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« on: October 07, 2014, 08:54:40 am »
the "albino origin theory" is a rather afro-centrist one, proposing a bunch of albino-africans as the "origins of the white race". these people completely ignore the indo-europeans line, and the notion that bone structure and other built in features, not skin color, is the supreme marker of race

as to:

-human engineering

-aquatic ape


they all make points in their own way, all three could very well be a part of human history in one way or another. same thing with how evolution does not discount creationism, and visa versa. it is what it is any way

one thing i'm quite sure of though, is that humanity has been around longer than is "officially" acknowledged, and that advanced civilizations have risen and fallen over and over again. more advanced than is being "officially" let on. there are secrets being kept (for better or for worse), and many more things still unknown maybe forever unknown. and this just in the history of our own species on our own planet, let alone in the rest of this vast cosmos. so many things we will never know, what is going on on the other side of the universe as we speak and all in between, in aspects of existence we do not even understand (oh but of course, any random scientific theory is always "the absolute truth" amirite? until some other "absolute truth" comes along and supplants it). believe me on not a "crack pot", nor am i some drum beating hippy...there is simply so much more out there/ and while i do have a certain degree of curiosity like most other creatures, if anything this feeling makes me more content, more at ease with existence. just take things as they go, its not the "end of the world" either way so to speak

General Discussion / Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« on: October 07, 2014, 08:11:39 am »
Okay, first of all any person from any states of this planet can theoretically take part in the "summer Olympics". Unless you live on a 10 meter diameter island in the middle of the pacific, you probably have the possibility to train for a 100 meter sprint, a 400 meter race, or a marathon, and anything in between.
However, there's something missing in warmer regions that makes it quite difficult for athletes native to these environments to properly train for the "winter Olympics": that's snow, and ice. Shocking, I know. I've never heard of people gone skiing on the Kilimanjaro top either. I guess you already acknowledged that (like you said, duh)
The point is that even though everybody on this planet is capable of training for the "summer Olympics", still a vast majority of Olympic champions originate from the warmer parts of our globe. And I doubt they get higher quality coaching compared to European athletes, for example.

you said close quote that "the best atheletes tend to come from warmer climates" followed by url of summer olympic athletes. i simply pointed out that you using such an arguement, is no different than if i were to say "the best atheletes tend to come from colder climates" followed by url of winter olympic atheletes

its pretty simple: people from warmer climates tend to be better at "summer events", people from colder climates tend to be better at "winter events". why make this into anything more than it has to be? unless of course you are argueing that you could bring a bunch of Jamaicans to Austria and expect them to be as proficient skiers as the latter, or visa versa bring a bunch of Austrians to Jamaica and expect them to be just as proficient sprinters (with "proper training" both ways of course). either way this is a pointless arguement given the whole entire reason tropical peoples do not have access to "snow" and "ice" while more northernly people do, is do to the fact that said northernly people were able to move and adapt to day to day life in these colder climates to begin with; you seem to have taken way too much offense to my post than was intended...and sport is not real life anyways

as to panacea, well i will clarify on what i was saying about skin color: i am well aware it is an adaptation to sunlight, ie lightskin is an adaptation to less intense sunlight regions, while dark skin is an adaptation to intense sunlight regions. the point i was making though is that you cannot simply throw a bunch of light skinned people in a tropical environment and expect them to do well, much less thrive. you vastly overestimate the ability of northern peoples to tan; and no i am not talking about Iberians. you seem to be insistent that any given humans alive today, could do well in a tropical environment; i quite disagree, as some people on this planet cannot even exist in such intense sunlight without covering there skin: why do you think the relatively light skinned peoples of the arabian peninsula or the bedouins of the sahara cover their skin head to toe, even in hot climates? its protection from the sun. protection that darker skinned people need far less of, if any/ oh but i thought people only needed to wear clothing in cold climates, and all people just ran around naked in the hot sun? the whole arguement of humans being "non-adapted" to cold climates on the notion of "having to wear clothes" can be flipped on you considering the various human populations that need to wear clothes to cover and protect there light skin (which was previously as adaptation to less intense sunlight of course, and hence either a different region or a different climate in the past) from the scorching rays of the sun

point being, while the adaptation of light skin is not directly a result of colder temperatures, it tends to go hand in hand with colder temperatures due to intensity of sunlight decreasing the farther north. and although many caucasians/indo-europeans retain the ability to tan to various proficiencies, many of the more northernly ones and populations from very cloudy climates like scotland for instance, cannot. and hence they would struggle immensely in a tropical climate. not to mention things like malaria, which is clearly of more risk to caucasians

either way between you and jeune i feel like i'm being jumped on for no reason. i mean come on, are you really going to claim that i am "completely wrong" about the ability of caucasians to tan? i should know my own ability to tan, and i can tell you i quite despise tropical climates, even sub-tropical climates. i don't like intense sun exposure in general, it depresses me. now do i acknoledge that some indo-european populations can tan quite well (including the fact that some are quite dark skin to begin with)? of course, never said i didn't. in fact i never even intended to discuss this, you just insisted on making assumptions about by knowledge of indo-europeans. again: i simply said in that some caucasians could not survive well in tropical environments. i never said that "all indo-europeans cannot tan". you are putting words into my mouth

bottom line though: the prevailing notion in this thread between panacea and jeune, is that even the most cold adapted and/or least intense sunlight adapted people, could still survive quite well in tropical climates. i quite contest this, there are quite a few human populations that would struggle on a day to day basis in "hot" climates, just as there are quite a few human populations that would struggle on a day to day basis in "cold" climates. this has nothing to do with me supposedly saying "all indo-europeans cannot tan"...

either way i'm just taking what you guys give me, lets not put words into each others mouths

General Discussion / Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« on: October 06, 2014, 10:47:17 pm »
This is an over simplification of things. What you're actually referring to is called "cryotherapy", and it's a brief exposure of the body to very cold temperatures, in a controlled environment. It has nothing to do with the exterior environment the individual evolves in. Also, it seems that most top athletes of the world happen to originate from the warmer climates.
Does living in colder climates really make you stronger then?

Tyler, it's true that the Yaghan people's moderate adaptation to cold is impressive. They might've been slowly on their way to completely adapting to their environments climates, perhaps in (far) future generations.
However, as the wikipedia article states, these people use not one but several technological (as defined by wiki) methods to resist the cold, such as fires, constructed shelters, and covering their body with animal grease. I mean, their territory isn't called "land of fire" (tierra del fuego) for no reason  :P, as the article explains.
Obviously their body's adopted method to resist the cold is extra fat layers, as they look "chubby" compared to other ethnic groups/tribes.

Ps: they always look like they're cold as hell!!  :D

to the bolded:

1) athletics is not a proper measurement of the all around fitness of a populations, given that sports tend to be quite specialized. whereas an all terrain game hunter(s) would have to be quite well rounded both mentally and physically and built for long term survival  in any given environment (without the aid of "protein powders and physical therapy" for example)

2) you say that "most top atheletes of the world happen to originate from warmer climates" followed by a url to the athletes of the summer olympics. well, no kidding you are going to find alot of atheletes from warmer climates in the summer olympics, if you look at the winter olympics you will notice that the athletes tend to come from colder climates (no duh). that was a rather poor argument; unless you are arguing that  summer athletes are "more athletic" than winter athletes, in which case i'd take it you've never done any cross country skiing...

also about the "extra layer of fat", well is it any coincidence that the peoples living in some of the coldest and windiest climates on earth ie the inuit, various siberian peoples, the various turko-mongolian peoples of the central asian steppes, etc tend to have copious amounts of subcutaneous fat, which coupled with their squat stature (another cold adaptation) gives them that jovial "puffy" appearance? that right there is an adaptation to the cold, much like pinnepeds for the matter. all of those argueing on the point that "just because people need to wear clothes, they are not fit for a cold environment", is like argueing that "just because people need to use knives and other tools to hunt prey, they are not fit to be predators" (i'm sure we have all seen this arguement on some vegan boards...but astoundinly the same arguement in premise is being used by some posters here). a large part of our adaptability is due to tool making, we have a very ancient structure to our hands that while useless for movement on are very useful for intricate tasks and grasping. couple that with are general body nature and omnivorous gut (leaning more on the carnivore side i would say, but we can still take advantage of a very large source of food without immediate or obvious consequences), and our group ability to plan and speak and track over rugged terrain and distances, and there you have it

but it is important to remember that even though we may have had to use tools to both hunt game and move to colder climates, we have still adapted to these lifestyles nonetheless, as can be seen in the human hunting skill that was so adept as to have become the dominant hunters in paleolithic times, at some point adopting/teaming up with some wolves hence proto-dogs, etc. despite what any vegan would tell you otherwise, human have hunting instincts. just about every person i have ever met does, with the exception of some rather confused people that have had that instincts "beaten out of them" so to speak. and many people on this planet do have some adaptation to cold, skin color is one (to the point where many light skinned people would not be able to return to tropical climates, without damaging there skin; the skin has to be covered up in such intense sun) and subcutaneous fat is another and the comparison is most obvious when comparing europeans with sub-saharan africans; notice which group naturally has more subcutaneous fat (in healthy individuals, it is always important to compare healthy individuals and understand the difference between healthy fat and unhealthy fat). when it comes to asians yes indeed the northern and central steppe asians tend to have more subcunaeous fat still, however some groups like the vietnamese and hmong, which live in tropical climates do have some of this fat, which can be explained by these groups having more northern origins in the past (for the matter there are some species of seals living in warmer climates, that of course still retain some blubber and hence have origins in colder climates). this not even getting into variations in metabolism. bottom line: people have always moved around a lot. and if any given group of people stays in one climate for long enough, they will adapt, and even if they move to a different climate later on, they will retain those adaptations until otherwise adapted out

this whole argument is becoming rather pointless, especially if its going to be on the notion of "technology usage", when many creatures utilize "technology" in its broadest defintion in one way or another, or at least their intellect to survive ie the bear example of how they utilize snow and borrows to keep warm (which is something mountain troops are taught the world over). i know alot of people here would take offense if some vegans randomly cam over spouting that "humans are not natural hunters because they use tools", so why argue the same thing with human adaption to various climates?

even the notion of a "perfect human habitat" is faulty since a habitat that is ideal for one population, would be unideal or even disastrous for another and visa versa. there is far too much regional adaptation that has gone on throughout humanity; some people would go as far as to say there is not such thing as "one humanity". i am not going to argue on that either way, but the reality of regional adaptation and what it means to this discussion, is something to consider

General Discussion / Re: Humans Natural/Optimal Habitat
« on: October 06, 2014, 08:21:51 am »
lets discuss the malvinas/falkland islands. climate of the falklands:

does that strike you as ideal human environment? not too hot, not too cold, maritime climate, access to seafood and rivers, ect

The hive phenomenon is also something to concider, as human beings live in more and more hive like environments, such as the modern metropolis, the tendency towards metrosexuality becomes greater. I think metrosexuality is an intermediate phase which may eventually lead to a population of a sexual humans who function much in the same way as worker ants. They work to support the colony but forgo the act of reproduction so that they can spend all their energy elsewhere.

In some places this tendency has already caused large portions of the population to become A sexual, this may be happening already in places like Japan, where men of the lower class have given up on dating or reproducing, just as worker ants had done hundreds of millions of years ago.

this makes sense

of course humans can't reproduce in the same way ants do...but it could work on the premises of replacement ie a subject population lives as non-sustainable "worker ants", while a completely foreign human population continues to breed in excess and thus these excess people are shipped into the countries of the diminishing "worker ants" to replace them. this very thing is happening in western countries as we speak

these "two spirit" native american peoples, are not the same as the cultural "rainbow" homosexuality we see today though. they sound more or less just like well rounded people that do not mold themselves to any set gender role; on the contrary modern homosexual culture is just that, a culture, one of depravity and self destruction. they do not compare

and either way, just because some tribes exhibited "two spirit" tendencies, does not validate the modern homosexual culture and its depravity and self destructive ways. and while you are not using it as such, it is the kind of thing that could be used as propaganda to convince subject people that the modern homosexual culture is "natural" on the grounds that some tribes were not so rigid in gender roles (which isn't a bad thing)

we have to be willing to make that distinction; otherwise its like saying modern humans should eat a harmful, genetically modified version of a food, because other humans once ate said food in its natural form ages ago 

internet connection does it again and nukes my post...but to sum it up:

-get some quality exercise, ideally cross training. don't over do it, but some good exercise when combined with some good food, helps put on some good weight (its the natural way, considering that in the wild to acquire meat, you would have to hunt it over rough terrain)

-don't be afraid of natural carbs, in season. wild berries are great this time of year, and autumn fruit season is a great time to put on some weight, eat a bunch of good autumn fruits combined with good stabilizing amounts of meat. perfect time of year to gain some good weight before the winter

its all about finding your balance between exercise and food combinations (for instance you may not want to eat at all until you exercise, then you will want alot of meat. or say you are taking a casual summer or autunm walk, you may feel like more berries or tree fruits), in accordance to your body and the seasons. its important if you are trying to gain some good weight and eventually find a good healthy range of weight, to eat in natural accordance to your activity and being; your body doesn't care for a strict charted meal plan, as long as you are eating good hearty and natural foods, in accordance to your lifestyle, you should come out of it the better

you know i have conversations on this subject matter with a friend from time to time, in every time the key issue we seem to disagree on, is the notion that people can be 'turned' gay, either through propaganda, hormonal tinkering through food, or both. he seems to believe that people are just born gay, and/or the people that simply choose to act "camp" or "flamboyant" or whatever you want to say, are just doing so because it is "enlightening" or "progressive" or whatever. he is quite a bit more liberal than i am, although not beyond all logic

while i would agree with him that maybe a very small percentage of human population could be born gay, ie with gender switched minds ( and these sorts of people are generally the kind of people that you would never guess are gay, and are generally cool, understanding people)...the vast majority of the homosexual community we see today are just confused, hormonally messed up unstable people. propaganda on subject populations is very powerful, and its nothing new as anybody that has lived to witness the difference between the German Reich and the Weimar Republic would tell you (i'm not that old, but lets just say homosexualality and all around depravity, as well as drug use and std's, skyrocketed in the weimar times). let alone the effects adverse foods/poisons  can have on hormones. actually the connections are evident through the last few thousand year hisotory of civilizations ie the more materialistic/depraved/currupt civilizations are generally the most rampant homosexual and socially confused, while the more natural tribal settings of people, homosexuality is generally unheard off. compare the depravity in the latter stages of the Roman Empire for instance, with the tribal lifestyles of Germania, and anybody should be able to note the difference. the connections are evident: the more greedy, currupt, and depraved a society, the rise in homosexuality, "modern art", pornography, std's, drug use, and all around social decay

as to overpopulation, while there is much i could say about it and the notion of artificial overpopulation, and what it means (ie the more resilient groups of people being bred out in favor of the easier to control slave masses, do to internationalist social policies), it is important to remember that without the artificial enabling of such overpopulation, the world population would regulate itself rather nicely, in the natural way. we'l see what happens, ie whether or not these artificial overpopulation methods can continue to hold off of the will of nature

you woulnd't favor this human in tribal competition with a bunch of orangutans? as a human he is smarter, and has better hunting instincts. he would likely become a tribal leader, or desert and live on his own

about his diet, it doesn't surprise me that a malay child could do so well on such a high fruit diet, given it is the environment the malay people have adapted too. bugs as well are good filling food when they are plentiful; key word, plentiful. and just like with fruits, in the tropics such foods are plentiful. much snacking, probably almost constantly throughout the day. much different than the eating habits/lifestyle of the humans adapted to more temperate/northern climates...but thats always something we have to keep in mind with diet, ie the adaptability of humanity to various climates, as we can all see in the various human races

these cases are always interesting though, humans being raised by different species. usually either by some sort of tribal primate species, or wolves. there are alot of hoaxes with this stuff as well...

Instincto / Anopsology / Re: Evolution and Instinctive Nutrition
« on: June 15, 2014, 04:09:53 am »
fact of the matter is, there is no one diet that will perfectly suit every different kind of person on this planet. we have all been evolving separately at different corners of the world, for a very long time now. the diet and way of life fitting to an Inuit, would not be fitting to a Khmer, and visa versa. while some people in this world do very well on chronically very low carb diets, some do not. in fact some populations seem to live well on much higher chronic carb consumption. and still many more people are somewhere in between

it really just depends on your ancestry, and in the western world anyways where the lot of us can go to the supermarket and pick up an global variety of foods (for better or for worse), your own self experimentation on what you can and cannot handle for starters, and eventually what you thrive on over the long run. humans are quite adaptable, there is no doubt that regional adaptation to diet has occurred just like it has with race and everything else genetic. for that matter we wouldn't be the only mammalian species to show such adaptations to diet, i mean look at the polar bear compared to the brown bear: polar bear eats a primarily carnivorous chronic VLC diet, while the brown bear eats a diet primarily consisting of fruits supplemented by whatever else it can find. both of these bear subspecies ("subspecies" being analogous to "race") can produce fertile offspring together, so they are the same species (just regionally adapted "races" of the same species if you will), but they both have rather healthily adapted to rather differing diets. wolves are much the same, showing regional adaptations ie subspecies, each eating the food they can hunt of find in their respective parts of the world. which is usually any animal they can take down, but as anybody that is familiar with canids will tell you, they are nothing if not opportunists

if i recall there was even an experiment once transplanting a carnivorous lizard, to an isolated island, and in just a few generations the lizard was already showing intestinal adaptations to a primarily herbivorous diet (i'l see if i can find the study). granted the transition was likely not smooth at first...but the point is, is that an hardy creature will adapt to any new environment and its dietary challenges it finds itself in, and if it can't it either A) dies out, or B) returns to whence it came (the option us humans likely face with large scale SAD diet if i may say, given there is a ratio between "positive adaptations to any new food source" and "the negative side effects of any new food source", and when it comes to the modern processed diets, humans are on the loosing end of that relationship). and the fact of the matter is over the many thousands (if not millions of years given some other theories) of years, various human populations at various corners of the world and everywhere in between, have been adapting to their environments and everything that comes with it

what does this mean? does this mean not to eat avocados if you are not from the americas? or any other given set of food/region of origin scenario? well, in the world we live in today its a bit more complicated than that. and when it comes to instincto and "what you are craving", well if you were living in your native part of the world you would instinctively crave only your native foods. you can see, how it would be a bit more complicated in todays world...

to put it simply, you just have to keep your ancestry in mind to give yourself a starting point, and then just experiment from there. and don't be afraid to ask questions and share your experiences, either here or with your family

first off i'l start by saying that i do not agree, nor disagree with any of this. the fact of the matter is if some civilization 50,000 years ago or whatever was mining, or for the matter any civilization right now mining gold, does not concern me nor anybody else for the matter. gold has only one use: to distort and subvert economies, on any scale

and if gold was indeed being mind'd in such amounts, then it must have been being used to distort and subvert economies on a large scale. we've all seen what such antics have done in modern times; any world situation with that much emphasis put on gold mining, would not have been any different. just a different time

where all the gold went? well, it no secret that the devious manipulators that pull the strings on the world's economy, do so through their manipulation of gold; a shiny metal of no real objective value, has been made an economic standard. and the only people fully aware of its inherent worthlessness, are the manipulators themselves. no doubt they are laughing at all the corrupted fools that literally sold away their lands and resources, sovereignty and very freedom, over a shiny worthless piece of metal. lets just put it this way: it didn't just disappear into thin air

wouldn't surprise me the notion of an ancient african civilization, given just how resource rich a continent it is

however the notion of them mining gold...something that has no objective value in innovation, but has only traditionally been used to manipulate and exploit people; in other words, the exploiters make people believe that something useless has value, "trade" with them and tinker with the interest and numbers a bit...and with the proper skill at doing so you can corrupt entire civilizations and turn them into mere puppets to your will

point being, whenever people started to believe that gold had value, humanity began the corrupt cycle it finds itself in today. and the notion that this may have been going on in differing parts of the world for hundreds of thousands of kind of scary considering that the manipulators could just exploit and leech off of civilzations, and then when they got close to destroying themselves simply use all the power and resources they have acquired through their exploits, to "jump ship" and go currupt and subjugate a differnt group of people. nothing more than a parasite that takes everything from its host, and when said host is on the brink of death, uses the power it stole from its host to successfully integrate into and infect a different host, further continue the cycle

for all we know this cycle could have been going on for many thousands of years

maybe humans never did have 48 chromosomes though...and i wouldn't consider chimpanzees our "closest living relatives", that sort of thinking always leads to propaganda. we are absolutely nothing like them, our organs are different, are forms are more slender and agile, and our lifestyles and diets don't even come close to comparable

this either means that humans and chimps sharing a line roughly a few million years ago is nothing more than propaganda, or humans simply have the ability to adapt and evolve considerably faster than any species on this planet. both make perfect sense (i mean the same people that like to say "humans are all the same" due to the supposed bottleneck and mitochondial eve, conveniently leave out the fact that over the roughly 40,000 year number they like to use, that entirely different races have supposed evolved in this short time frame, with entirely different adaptations and capabilities to their environments, and completely differnt lifestyles. which, in itself kinda blows out of the water the cultural marxist agenda being pushed)

in short: while i am one to believe that humans have been apart of their own distinct line (or at least lines of distinct hominids, well apart from proto-primates and such) for far longer than is considered mainstream science these days, the notions that humans adapt and evolve considerably faster than other species is also something at play

all i can say for sure is that i am not willing to blindly trust, the same establishment that would have me drugged and depleted all with a smile on their faces for their own gains. but hey, at the end of the day it hardly matters what we evolved from millions of years ago, as long as you are aware of you more recent ancestors, whether contemporary or paleo, and their healthy lifestyles and ways of life

Europe as a whole dug its grave during the world wars, the great balkanization of europe. at the turn of the 20th century, internationalists forces wanted to take over and subjugate the two mightiest sovereign forces to oppose them: the German Reich, and the Russian Empire. two mighty neighbors that despite cultural differences ie germanic and slavic linguistic differences, were (and still are) for all intensive purposes brothers. the internationalist forces knew they could never defeat these powers directly, so what do they do? they stir tensions between them, by manipulating their allies and through their proxy black hand assassins, murder a prominent figure and there you go, everything goes haywire. in this way two former allies, were turned against each other; and both of them fell (Germany to debt slavery, Russia to bolshevism) . turned against each other, because they could not see the common enemy that was the catalyst of all the friction

this of course spilled over into the second world war, with a the grudges of the previous decades more prevalent than ever; grudges that should not have even existed. and look where it has gotten us, slaves in our "own" nations; and i say that in parenthesis, because they are only "our" nations in name. after all the most useful slave to its master, is a slave that believes it is free and prosperous

and if any nation fights to regain its sovereignty? they are labeled as "nazis", or a "danger to the world" or blackmailed for "carrying out genocide" like what happened to Serbia in the 90's (not to mention the propaganda against Syria right now; i mean provide "rebel" ie al quada groups with chemical weapons, have them kill hordes of Syrians with them, and conjure up some random film images with no context, and there you have it: the western media goes and tells the world that Assad and his forces are responsible for these chemical attacks. straight up lies. if the masses would just turn off all their fed media for a month, and lived and observed the realities of their lives, maybe then they would be able to identify their real common enemy. but don't count on that; a more likely thing to count on is both of us being tortured and thrown in prison if we don't shut up and act like "good citizens" any time soon). nothing new there, back in the second world war the Soviet Union justified its invasion of the Baltics, through the notion that the Baltics were a "threat" to the Soviet Union. same thing with Finland, just mind its own business Finland. just like today how a bunch of Taliban hiding in caves are a "threat" to the US of A; people are so brainwashed by the propaganda, that they cannot see the obvious maneuvering here in the US military actions over the last decade and before, which basically amounts to nothing more than "surround Iran", the latest nation that just wants to mind its own business and live in peace in its ancient land

the bottom line is if we ever want to get our nations back, our national sovereignty, we have to do it together as brothers watching out for each other, lest we end up like Serbia. we cannot turn our backs on each other as we did in the world wars, in face of a common enemy that has made slaves out of all of us. cattle cannot rise against its masters; wolves, have no masters

quite agreed, on all fronts. and what happens when things don't go as planned for the psychopathic aggressors? they simply destroy everything and try to start over. the corrupt is a danger to everything natural. the power to subvert and destroy those that innovate, to the bidding of the manipulator

its not something i bother talking about though, given that you would get looked at as if you were crazy saying these kinds of things (which is of course a programmed response), not to mention tortured and thrown in prison

still though the notion of humans being "designed", as in by a sentient creator species or master bloodline? well thats not likely in the beginning considering we evolved from something, although there could be some type of modifications to the original genetics. you know, just how humans domesticated dogs, so too were humans domesticated. and nowadays we find ourselves no different than cattle. so the notion of humans being "designed" ie a process of domestication to breed "ideal" traits for subjugation to the master bloodline, is not only not farfetched, but it can be seen happened today. whenever grains began to be cultivated, and civilizations arose, no doubt some manipulative bloodlines salivated at the opportunity to corrupt and subjugate the new masses, creating cattle out of them. so the prospects of this going on for many thousands of years, is not at all farfetched

of course, everything we are saying would get labeled as "pseudo science" or "pseudo history" by the mainstream, and the herd would just repeat everything the "authority figure" tells them under and denounce our take on things under the pretext that "you are not a historian/scientist". no different that the people that really believe their doctor is looking out for them; let them in on the fact that western doctors are nothing more than front men for the pharmaceutical companies, yes tell them that doctors and all the proponents of the SAD want you to get sick...and you not only get looked at like you are crazy, but people often get violent in those situations. which again is of course intended, the "authority figures" bank on this

but whatever. as you said at the end of the day all that matters is silent actions, to "be the change you want to see in the world". sure the manipulators can paint a salvation as a death sentence and visa versa...but that doesn't validate their propaganda as far as the objectivity of nature is concerned

i like to look at people like this: you will always have some enemies in this world, beings that will hate you just for your genetics and will do everything they can to subjugate and exploit you. but only through actions and living by example can you ever make genuine friends; for instance if you lecture someone on something perceived as "radical", they will likely shun you. but if you show them through actions the objective validity of your ways, then you can get through to even the most indoctrinated of beings. silent and noble action, the unspoken language of understanding

by the way how is things in Estonia? all i ever hear about is the Baltics being some of the most preserved and resilient places in Europe, despite the exploits of the soviet dragon

its not an issue of whether or not we as humans are "natural here", but more an issue of "authority figures" beating us down time and again as children reminding us of how we are nothing but cattle more or less. the same authority figures that tell us to eat grains and vegetable fare as the bulk of our diets, tell us how "similiar" we are to chimpanzees...despite the fact that out very bone structure points to a primarily carnivorous diet (our lean forms, much like the wolf, is due to far reduced need for intestinal length due to the consumption of high quality diet, ie fats and proteins). all you here about in school is how "similar" humans are to chimpanzees...yet our very bone structure and essential organs, and the foods and lifestyle we need to thrive matches that of completely different creatures?

people are being mislead on a massive scale, and are being molded into something they are not. like i said, turning wolves into sheep

as far as humans being "seeded" here? well anything is possible. i am very open to the possibilities of their being ancient civilizations on this planet, that us contemporaries will never know about. its not really our business anyways, things come and go. that shouldn't surprise anyone

sure trying to uncover more of our past is nice and all...but at the end of the day we are what we are, and we are designed to go forwards

Off Topic / Re: Evil retarded Socialist puts down farmers markets
« on: June 10, 2014, 07:59:39 pm »
My experience is opposite that of colorless. I live in Vermont, and it seems new farmers markets are popping up about everywhere you look and most have waiting lists of vendors who want to sell their food products. Granted many vendors want to sell hand-crafted junk (i.e. fancy toffee, maple-flavored candies and cakes, alcoholic beverages, locally brewed root beer), but there are definitely a good selection of vendors selling high quality grass fed meats and pastured eggs. There's legislation working its way through the political process that would even allow raw milk to be sold at farmers' markets.

I hear opinions similar to those in the article Geoff posted often here in Vermont, and I'm sure they're echoed throughout the US. I just wrote a blog post entitled Treating Food as an Investment about the larger issue of food prices, food expenditures and their relationship to health expenditures.  Folks might want to check it out.

I think that 1,000 years from now the humans who are living will be descendants of people today who were willing to invest in the highest of high quality foods. Time will tell, of course.

sounds great up in Vermont. i live in southern Massachusetts, and the farmers markets have been withering away over the years. there are obviously some great farms in the region, close by to the cities so its not an issue...but i guess there just isn't enough demand to actually set up stands in the parks anymore. the urban areas down here, like many throughout the country are filled with the "old ways" ie the ways of the old immigrant groups and their traditions, resisting the "new ways" ie the walmarts, mcdonalds, all around degenerate culture

for some people its not a big deal to drive out to the farms...but what the farmers markets were about, was bringing locally grown and pastured organic foods to the city parks, for the neighborhood to enjoy. now that said local culture is being replace by a walmart culture, as expected the health of these neighborhoods is getting worse and worse

Off Topic / Re: Evil retarded Socialist puts down farmers markets
« on: June 10, 2014, 06:54:46 pm »
unfortunately i've noticed a decline in farmers markets over the years hear in New England. just ten or fifteen years ago their used to be multiple just in city parks; now its like they hardly seem to exist any more. sure you can go out to the farm...but the farmers market was nice and it promoted a healthy and affordable lifestyle right in the city parks

meanwhile while the farmers markets and small family markets are closing, massive super walmarts and mcdonalds are being built over it (this recently happened in a city i am familiar with, completely changing the feel of the neighborhood it took over. the whole multi-block area went from the feel of an old french american neighborhood with some old granite buildings, to well anybody thats seen a super walmart complete with sams club and mcdonalds can imagine what it looks like). well, thats internationalism for you

havnt watched either of those videos yet, maybe will get across to it later on. however i did read some of the comments, as expected an argument. why do such arguments always seem to come down to "evolution vs creationism", as if only one can exist and not the other? the fact of the matter is that both exist, and can be seen just among humanity: in our adaptations, which is evolution, and in the things we create like various machines and cloned life/genetic modification

one thing is for sure, that like in all other animals humans can adapt and thus can evolve. as far as origins? well to be honest i don't really dwell on it, i look forwards not backwards. the one thing that does kind of annoy me though is how mainstream science always likes to take the opportunity to try and portray humans as close to monkeys or chimpanzees as they can, its an ongoing form of propaganda that goes hand in hand with the vegan arguments. i mean seriously just take one look at the slender form of a healthy human, and compare it to the rounded gut of an ape, and anybody should be able to tell their is a serous difference there in diet and lifestyle, and instincts. the main issue staunch creationists seem to have with evolutionists is that they so commonly insist on how "close" humans are to apes. while evolutionism itself is a sound thing, it is so commonly distorted and used as a propaganda tool, that some people simply loose all touch with it due to these distortions

its one thing to say that humans are "primates"; its another to try to repeatedly portray humans as just over glorified chimpanzees.  its rather insulting, and i can understand why some staunch creationists would feel insulted. theres a reason humanity has never associated itself with such apes, and coincidentally associated itself most closely with wolves ie proto dogs. diet and lifestyle, and instincts. even if humans are a primate, humans are a rangy hunting and all around cunning and versatile primate: a creature that no doubt did not evolve from slouched pot bellied apes, but has been evolving on its own separate line for many millions of years

this, makes the most sense. just because some scientists can find some "similarities" between humans and various apes (which makes sense there would be a small degree of similarity if both are primates), doesn't mean that humans and apes are the same or that one came from the other, or even that both shared a recent common ancestor. don't fall for that propaganda, propaganda from the same source that would have us all eating heavily grain and vegetation diets it it had its way

(on another note, something that always makes me laugh is the vegan myth that "meat putrifies in the gut", when the fact of the matter is meat is the most easily digested food their is. within seemingly an hour after eating it meat turns to chime and is absorbed when i eat it, its the easiest and most invigorating food to eat. on the contrary whenever i have had green vegistables in the past, it gives my gut great pains and troubles and seems to fester in their causing all sorts of damage. i don't even want to talk about the sort of damage such foods have been doing to my gut over the years, but lets just say the only things that have been "putrifying" in my gut over the years has been vegetable affairs. the same people that spread propaganda making people believe they are chimpanzees, or how "similiar" the human gut is to a gorilla's, spread the grain/vegistable propagada. and people wonder why staunch creationists are so turned off by this?)

EDIT: i mean take a look at this:

be honest with yourselves, which rib cage and backbone/pelvis does the human one in the middle more closely resemble, the squat rounded on of those apes on either side of it, or the long and lean wolf one shown here:

i'm not straight up implying anything here: i'm just presenting images. i'm just saying, the as far as slender form goes humans have alot more in common with wolves than with apes. and its no coincidence considering paleo humans were rangy and cunning hunters, rivaled with wolves and other predators, and eventually formed a bond with some wolves ie proto dogs

fact of the matte is, all mammals are said to share a common ancestor roughly 40 million years ago or something along those lines, a small rat like mammal that used to commonly get preyed on by snakes (which would explain the pan-mammalian fear of snakes, some much more than others considering come mammals have evolved to hunt snakes. but the primal fear still exists). from these small mammals it is said that all existing mammals today branched off from. what makes sense to me, is that while humans are still primates or primate like creatures, humans branched off from all other proto primates very early on, at the point where the difference between say proto primates and proto-canids and all the other mammals, wasn't anywhere near as large as it is today. this, makes alot more sense then the mainstream theories that humans evolved from squat rounded vegetation eating dimwitted apes (and no, ape intelligence does not come close to pack hunting predator intelligence. just because you can dress up a chimpanzee in a funny hat and make it dance or make it look at a mirror, doesn't mean it wouldn't end up as food to something like a wolf. the strategies and coordination skills to hunt the kind of prey wolves hunt in packs, is well beyond the capabilities of vegitarian/frugivore/insectovore apes)

and thats all all of this is, theories. sure the first thing the supporters of mainstream theories would shout is "psuedo science", but then again claiming that humans are most like apes simply because we share some genetic similiarites to such (which again would make sense considering they are also primates although of a different line. and by the same token we share much genetic similarity with some other mammals, and natural instincts and genetic adaptations that have much more in common with other pack hunting mammals, than to apes), and that we have "similiar guts" (which is a downright lie, what a surprise) and natural diets, is psuedo science if i've ever seen any

the bottom line, is that i do not pretend that i know everything, or that what i propose is "in stone". can you say the same about the people that argue time and time again that humans share most in common with chimpanzees? its a propaganda campaighn, intentionally dumbing people down by making them believe that "since you are closest to chimpanzees, you should eat like them". and if you eat like them, you loose function of your body and mind, become less intelligent and cunning (not to mention you loose your hunting instinct), and thus more easy to control. in other words, a way to turn wolves into sheep. which is exactly what the internationalist cabal wants

General Discussion / Re: Sun Exposure
« on: June 09, 2014, 07:34:43 pm »
i wouldn't go overboard with the summer sun exposure. you can get plenty of sunlight during the cooler seasons, to spare your skin the trouble in the heat

in the summer if i'm out in the hot sun, i'm wearing a hat. period. and i try to cover up as much as a can. the bottom line is that if you are pale skinned, once the sunlight gets to a certain intensity it is going to bother your skin. it can be compensated to an extent by eating lot of seafood and any foods that promote skin health and proper balance of skin oils...but intentional sun bathing, in the heat? that doesn't make sense to me. i mean i "sun bathe" a bit in cooler weather like my dog, from time to time (i think i took after him, because its not simply i used to do). but in the heat, the body strives for shade

hence why sun exposure, like many other things is a seasonal thing for me; i try to get a good amount of sun exposure in the spring and autumn, to compensate for the relative lack of direct sun exposure in the summer and winter. whats more important is that you live as much as you can outdoors, regardless of whether you may have to wear a hat in the summer  or cover up some

needless to say in the wild, most mammalian carnivores will not pass up the opportunity to consume carbs. of course this consumption is seasonal, and would be considered a "treat"

the way i look at it, i'm fine eating as many carbs as i could safely eat, without degenerative reactions and stressors to the body. in other words, how much carbs can the human body safely handle, without the insulin system being overtaxed hence diabetes, plaque formation in the arteries, weakened immune system,ect so on so forth? to what extent can the human body take advantage of this carbohydrate energy source, and suffer none or inconsequential side-effects?

Pages: [1] 2
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk