Alex Jones is actually part of the global conspiracy... Controlled opposition. There were hints of it going back years, while he was ridiculing AV and others and promoting fake health gurus pushing a semi vegan agenda, all the while his show mostly centered around selling all kinds of pills to their listeners. Not drugs, but supplements of all sorts. And terrible "investment" schemes like numismatic gold coins, where you needed the price to go up by 1000% to break even. Even then I refused to believe it, and just passed it off as him being dumb and uninformed.

Once he began cheerleading for Trump it became undeniable. Now he's actually got his audience convinced that the conspirators want to take Trump out because he represents a threat to them. Ha!

Ok, now you have my attention, show me where they are saying that 'openly'.  And please be it the head of the worlds major companies, like a Monsanto, an Exxon, or any or the major drug company players.

Just one example out of many that could be given

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUJMR3BUm2s

The head of large fish is not easily chewable, so it makes sense that we wouldn't eat them. The eyes however, depending on the fish type and how fresh it is, can be a real treat. They're juicy, fatty and sometimes even sweet. I just poke 'em out with a fork, being careful not to puncture them too much, or plently of the fluid will leak - sometimes even squirt all over the place lol

I'm not sure what you meant about the scales. I used to eat scales cooked, but raw I hate them. There are no scales in the eyes, though.

Thanks, that makes sense too

This seems like big news. I've always wondered about that.

I know you hate when I bring up AV in every thread, but he said that the appendix (which could be categorized as a part of the intestine even though it is a separate organ in and of itself), was not "vestigial" and that it had a very real and important purpose, and that was to identify toxins in the body and to store the "memory" of the chemical reaction needed to handle them. Because of this, he said that people who had their appendix surgically removed (like him) would take 24 to 48 hours since a toxin enters the body, to develop the proper reaction to it, whereas in people who had an appendix, it would take around 20 minutes.

I don't know who the ones at the top are, all I see is that there's an agenda that has moved consistently towards one direction, and many of the self made megarich and high ranking politicians start pushing it once they get to a certain age and certain level of wealth and influence. It's obvious that someone is telling them what to think, what to do, and what the plan is.

Or perhaps there's no one calling the shots, and it's all just the way the system is set up. But being that it's been so long and the direction is so clear, I would highly doubt there isn't any group that's behind this. But again, it's not like you'd hear about this group, their members and their plan on the evening news.

This is why talking about such entities as the illuminati, the bilderberg group or whatever, is counterproductive, as it is exactly what they want. Surely these organizations play a role, but they're not the ones designing the plan.

Yeah, but they don't. Most live in major metropolitan areas where they eat the same crap, breathe the same air etc..   The rich have their country homes in pristine areas but grind it out for most of their lives in the city where the deals are made.

Yeah, that's not who we're talking about.

Most of the true people running the show stay behind the scene and few if any even know who they are.

It's kind of like black holes. We can't see them, but we see the effects of them being there.

Any part of the animal that is edible and tastes good to you should be a good addition

How long until the mainstream realizes that all cooking is harmful?

In my experience if you feel you need fiber, it's better to get it from bland fruits: tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, avocados, raw coconut meat, etc. Sweet fruits not only are high in sugar but will often have the opposite effect than that which you're seeking (sweet fruit juices would be even worse). Leafy greens have cellulose, that's another kind of fiber that I don't think we're supposed to get a lot of. And then you've got the herbs and spices, but those should only be eaten in small quantities if at all. The strong pungent flavor is telling you that. Some people recommend nuts and seeds to increase fiber intake, but I've found those when consumed in large quantities dry out your body, they will make you want to drink a lot of water and even then you'll be dehydrated as your body tries to make something useful out of a non fresh food. Soaking them in water for 20 minutes to a few hours may help, but I haven't found them very useful even after that. Also, most of the nuts at least are cooked.

Also, before you decide you need colossal amounts of fiber, look into what you're eating. Cooked foods are always detrimental in large quantities, whether it's meat, olive oil (most of it is cooked), coconut oil (doesn't exist raw), sweet potatoes (you're probably cooking them), table salt (cooked and refined), magnesium (chemically extracted, totally unnatural), gelatin (highly cooked and denatured protein collagen from meat waste)... All of these are cooked and toxic, pretty much listed in increasing degrees of toxicity.

Enemas are TOOLS.

I have saved real PEOPLE with enemas.

Always have enema buckets at home for any emergency.

I am the family healer and enema knowledge is a MUST.

Enemas I have used to heal people:

Water enema
Sugar and Salt enema
Oil enemas (VCO, Olive oil)
Coffee enemas

TOOLS are no different from having a HAMMER, a COMPUTER, etc.

From the trend of your questions... it seems you want to know if enemas are recommended as a mainstay of a healthy life style?

My answer would be in the same tone as most of the long timers here... NO... not for a long term healthy lifestyle.

I only recommend enemas as TOOLS.

Strive to live a clean and healthy life... keep enema knowledge and equipment for emergencies.

This is how I think about them. They can be used in the case of severe constipation or intestinal blockage?

You are missing the point. The point being that the mother in a tribal community of c.1,000 shares so many genes with others in the tribe that killing her own child is no big deal, no real loss.More importantly, these women HAD to kill their children or face starvation and eventual death if they kept on sparing them. They did not have contraception in those days. Strange though it might seem, people, in desperate circumstances, or even wild animals, will inevitably kill their own baby if that means they survive and are thus able to have children in the future. Wild animals also sometimes  kill their children even if they are healthy. so, meaningless...A case in point are some birds which deliberately feed the older chick(the  first one out of the shell), so that, if they have more chicks than just one, the others die even if they are ultra-healthy.

Again, they would not willingly and happily kill their own children to benefit other children in the tribe/band/group/whatever, it doesn't matter how small the difference in genetics is, there's a difference.

And you keep failing to recognize that a mother in paleo times did not provide herself with all of the resources required for survival, she's not a bear. H-G humans lived in groups and shared resources in a communistic style. Which is why communism is so attractive for people who don't understand economics and don't understand that the paradigm shifted 180 degrees with the development of agriculture and civilization.

If they are gods to us, then their impact on Earth would be devastating. The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

More anthropomorphism... Or worse, you only grant them the worse human qualities in these terms. You often argue against destroying the Earth,  that means you must believe humans have the capacity to not destroy the Earth. Then an infinitely powerful and infinitely wise being would be infinitely able to do this as well (infinite in relative terms to our power and wisdom)

The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

Most people have seen UFOs. By definition, anytime you've seen something moving across the sky and you don't know what it is, you've seen a UFO. Personally I've seen many, and 2 in particular I can't explain in any other way than a superior intelligence, or a hidden technology so far beyond my understanding that it seems like a superior intelligence. Either that, or they might have been hallucinations. I obviously can't tell.

The ashkenazi jews iq studies were highly flawed. They were too small and were hopelessly biased, being accused of not being truly representative of that population, and called "bad science".

Haha, you obviously haven't encountered many. The difference is so big that once you've met a few dozen of them at random, you immediately realize it's true.

Indeed, I read once that the  average IQ of  Israelis is a mere 94 IQ, which makes more sense in the light of inbreeding.

Askenazis only make up 30% of Israel's population, and in fact they are much less inbred in Israel than they are anywhere else in the world, since in Israel they frequently mix with non ashkenazi jews, whereas in other parts of the world, they don't do it as much (at least the religious ones), simply because they don't live in close proximity to other jewish groups in large numbers. Other jewish populations have roughly the same IQ as the broader race they belong to, it's only ashkenazis that have much higher IQ.

So yes, an average IQ of all Israeli people is irrelevant when calculating the ashkenazi IQ, and even a study of ashkenazi IQ in Israel should be taken with a grain of salt.

And of course, your claim that inbreeding to a mild extent like that seen by these groups decreases IQ and longevity is again disproven.

As regards the Amish, they have numerous genetic diseases as well, but, perhaps because of their healthier, ancestral diet(raw milk etc.) are less inclined to have the more modern diseases.

So even though they're genetically much worse off, they're much healthier. Then your claim that most of human ill health is caused by inbreeding is again proved to be nonsense.

A quite stupid remark, in view of the fact that a tribe of a 1,000 individuals are so related to each other, that the elimination  of a few offspring by 1 mother means absolutely nothing re removing that mother's dna. Absurd!

Not a stupid remark at all, if you understand that whosoever in the "tribe" (using your definition) manages to provide their offspring with the best conditions among all relevant members of the group, and if such knowledge and ability is passed on to their offspring, either through learning or through genetics, will have a genetic makeup that, over time, becomes more prevalent within the given relevant group. So even if everybody else shares most of your own genes they don't share all of your genes, nor have them in the same combinations you do, so you still have a biological incentive to be selfish. It's only via culture that you can pretend to go against this, and usually it's just for show, to gain benefits.

Here is more info on mothers eliminating their offspring in the wild:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811

Do you even read something before you link to it? Horribly formatted site, super small font and long text saying nothing except everything I've already been saying - animals kill young of their own species for three reasons: 1) Because they're not THEIR offspring, but someone else's. 2) Because they are too ill and will soon die anyway, and to spend resources raising them instead of having more offspring who have a better chance of survival and reproduction would be a waste. 3) Because they already have other offspring to take care of, and can't manage to care for all of them, so they choose the least fit and eliminate them. Or if the mother is starving and calculates it's better to eliminate her offspring now, so that she can survive and have offspring in the future which have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

Quite remarkable ignorance! More numbers does NOT imply superiority. The fact that there are no genuine aliens, implies that Fermi's Paradox is correct, meaning that humans will eventually become extinct. Once that happens, as I have shown, all domesticated plants and animals will either become extinct, or , in a very few cases, evolve to become like their wild counterparts.

Nonsense based on a ton of assumptions with no evidence to back up any of them.

What if life as we know it is much more rare than we think? What if the development of high intelligence like that of humans is much more rare than we think even in planets where life exists? (it apparently took 3.5 billion years to develop on Earth even after life got started, which apparently took another billion years)

What if the Universe isn't as old as we think? What if interstellar travel at a near or faster than light speed is physically impossible?

What if the aliens have already been here but they don't necessarily want us to know about them? We could even be their ant farm for all we know (think: God)

No, YOU are showing a complete lack of understanding of what I am saying. My point was that there are a lot of severely inbred populations, which are NOT interbreeding with others in a big way, such as Fundamentalist Middle-Eastern Muslims, Hasidic/Orthodox Jews, the Amish, which are exploding in numbers.

Even these populations are much less inbred now than they were before. But your claims were that the general decrease in health in the human population was caused by this, not only in particular groups. (and by the way, most of those particular groups usually have way better health than the average for the human population)

Err, dumbass, there are reports of damage to the bones via tools etc.:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-were-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought-180957819/

Typical. You start to see your arguments fall down so you start calling names. You're making a good job at showing who, if any of us, is the dumb one.

I wasn't aware that in butchering and eating animals, you wouldn't damage their bones with tools! Especially to get to that tasty bone marrow inside. In fact when you are trying to kill an animal of a much larger size than you, attempting to break or damage its bones is a terrible idea. What you do is target their organs and vital areas, or to a lesser extent at least the soft muscle. Even after removing all of the skin and meat, breaking a mammoth's bones with stone age tools would be a challenge. Attempting to do so as a means of killing the animal would be idiotic, if not suicidal.

To be clear, I never said humans didn't hunt mammoths. Just like I never said Neanderthals didn't build ships.

The problem with you is that your main, deluded, philosophy is that modern humans are superior, no matter what. The (raw) palaeolithic philosophy is that ancient humans were (mostly) superior, and modern science has shown this again and again.

You don't even define a loaded word like "superior" and still use it to talk about what you think I think.

The raw paleo philosophy is that humans have evolved to thrive on a raw paleo diet, and so a raw paleo diet is our natural diet and the diet we do best on. If you will, it's the superior diet for us.

So if you're talking about health, then yes, obviously, paleo people were superior to us. If you're talking about power, achievements, intelligence or morality, then we are.

In any case, we are what they became by succeeding at what they did. Some of that is great. Some of that needs to be improved upon. some of that needs to be flipped around 180 degrees.