20 months. Still no news. Are there no active members of the forum who had contact with him outisde the forum? Or with someone else who might.

With such attitudes its no wonder why one would be sexually confused and hateful, tisk tisk. These perniciously anti Love of humanity sentiments are becoming extremely pervasive in modernia, and its a most unfortunate state of affairs that so many are so abjectly hateful towards human existence that they, if given the power, would deny the right of future generations to reproduce the experience life and the chance to evolve into mother earths wildest dreams come true.

It's all by design. The sheep will be led astray by the wolves, and cheer on as their fellow sheep are sacrificed at the altar of the false gods. The falsemic should have made it completely clear for anyone who wasn't aware.

Any kind of meat.

You misunderstood, I said avoid the mince, not all meat from the supermarket/butcher. By mince I assume you mean ground meat? The problem is not simply being grain fed, but also that when the meat is ground, it could have other things besides meat added to it, or it could have high toxin fat that you would spit out if you were to try to eat it whole and plain, but since it's ground, you still eat it.

I'm not sure why you thought doing this diet would cure addictions, if anything it makes it easier to indulge in those and still survive, or keep your health deteriorating at a slower pace than it otherwise would. If he wants to improve, he needs to cut out or dramatically reduce tobacco and alcohol. And I don't think pills are good either.

Try marinating meats in lemon juice for a few hours. If possible, grind or mash the meat, or chop it as fine as you can, prior to marinating. Then chew well as you eat it. If that improves digestion, you know it's lack of stomach acid.

I don't eat bile, but I was saying that raw bile would be better than tablets.

Freezing does kill many bacteria and destroy nutrients, but it doesn't add many toxins either. So it can be a compromise if all your options are grassfed frozen or grainfed fresh.

I've just been pondering over the past year of crazyness... Do we even know for a fact if previous global pandemics were real? And by real I mean if they really reached the claimed extents.

With today's tech and communications it's hard to make up millions of deaths, and they still managed to come up with a couple. How much easier would this be to pull off in, say, 1920 (spanish flu), or even moreso, in 1350 (black death)?

What's most worrying is that with today's globalization of most urban areas of the world, if these pandemics had an unnatural cause, it's now become easier than ever to make sure enough of the world population suffers the disease, and thus to manufacture the pandemic if those in power stood to gain from it, and if natural forces did not cooperate.

I was doing a quick search online because I was having doubts about whether evidence that is found in a search that is unrelated to the crime in question, can be admissible in court in order to charge the defendant with another crime that had nothing to do with the crime originally under investigation.

I came up with the following. I'm not sure if this will apply in your state, and in either case you should ask your attourney. But in case it helps:

Irrelevant Evidence is Generally Inadmissible

You and your lawyer might need to demonstrate to the court why a piece of evidence is irrelevant because the prosecution might feel differently about it. In addition to being material and legally obtained, admissible evidence is any evidence that is relevant to the case, meaning that is provides reasonable inferences about the case. When a piece of evidence is deemed to be irrelevant to a case, it may be thrown out.

https://www.rflawgroup.com/what-makes-a-piece-of-evidence-inadmissible-in-court/

As far as my intuition helps me to understand this, it means that if a piece of evidence is found during a legal search that is done looking for evidence for one crime, it cannot then be used to charge the defendant with another crime completely unrelated to the first one.

Really interesting article. Antibiotics seem to improve the symptoms but not the disease. Best to stay away from them.

For a second there I thought Tyler was back. Then I saw the date of the post.

If you're a white or east asian man it might be possible to grow a little by age 18-20, but 4 inches would be totally unheard of as far as I know. If you're a woman or if you're of another race it would be much harder still.

I would try putting raw honey on it.

I look at this study from this angle:

- majority of women only desire to reproduce with the top 20% of males
- the majority of women dismiss the notion of monogamy and will not decide to mate with a male solely on the premise that he is a BACHELOR
- the bottom 80% of men have not been reproducing... for plenty of generations.

Women are the soil, men provide seeds.

It's like planting fruit trees, when you eat an amazing, wonderful fruit such as durian or avocado, humans will desire to plant the seeds from such a delicious fruit.

You are forgetting that reproduction in a human society is not simply about having the best genes, but having the best environment to raise your kids in. If 10 women all have babies with the same man, who is going to provide, help feed, clothe, teach, raise their kids? They either have to do it all by themselves, or they have to find another man who will do this for them while neglecting his own biological prerogative to reproduce, or they have to rely on a state apparatus that steals from men who don't reproduce, in order to give to the babies of those men that do.

In either of all these examples, the quality of the childraising will be much poorer than in a stable, traditional, nuclear family structure. If the woman has to provide for her children all by herself, she is much more likely to be poor and to not have the time to properly teach and raise her children. If she relies on a beta male to help do this but not reproduce, he's more likely to be resentful and mistreat the children, or simply be incompetent and do a poor job at raising them. If she relies on the State... Well, the State wants something in return, and what they want is to turn her children into state worshipping zombies.

Furthermore, the genes that are "best" under a situation of widespread monogamy, are different to those that are best under a situation of widespread polygamy. For example, a woman who only sees men as a sperm bank, may not be interested in the man's capacity for love, bonding, teaching, caring, protecting, or providing. She will simply look for biological markers of sexual attraction, which, interestingly enough, may not even signal good health or chance of survival.

Finally, you are forgetting about what happens to all of the men who can't find a mate in your polygamous society. They will be much more likely to be violently aggressive, to generate chaos in general.They simply have much less to lose than a man who has a stable mate that is bonded to him for life. This also affects women, who will feel lonely and in despair when they're all alone with their children and no man wants to stay with them for more than a night or two of mating, and this will impair the woman's ability to nurture and care for her children, also. But the effect is clearly much worse for males, which also have a greater capacity for harming others in the society, and not just their own families.

A society such as this is much worse for everybody, for the women, for the men at the top, for those at the bottom, and especially for the children and future generations. It's not an accident that, like I mentioned in my previous post, all societies that became prosperous did so by introducing monogamy and nuclear family structures, and the extent to which they became prosperous is directly proportional to the extent to which the society was able to achieve a widespread and faithful implementation of this model.

14 months and still MIA...

The left can be so predictable and rigid in it's way, they have their own uniform (people dress the same in many groups), here in Germany it is often taboo to a say that you enjoy meat in the left scene. Many are anti wilderness in many ways (not consciously), they say the earth could support so much more people. Hunting is evil says many. And, the right is scary, wanting to control humans and planet with tech and pharma.
Actually, I am quite sure that one is not possible without the other, they need each other.
We need to find a different way.

There is another way. Start properly identifying and denouncing the radical left as the most evil form of politics there is. You have an advantage in Germany, in that most people would do anything to not be associated with the nazis. Start correctly pointing out that the nazis were a radical left wing party. It shouldn't be too hard. It's in the name. Point out how Hitler was a vegetarian, and how many of his policies aren't that far off from what is being proposed today by the radical left. Simply swapping national socialism for international socialism doesn't change the fact that it's still socialism.

Point out how Germany became prosperous and happy after WWII because it embraced a mostly free market policy for several decades, and how that's the only way to progress further, if that's what "progressives" claim they want.

If you wanna take it one step further still, you can mention how the nazis' plans for a united europe with Germany at the top were realized under the socialist european union.