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 - TylerDurden

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 573
General Discussion / Re: Eating connective tissue
« on: May 29, 2018, 11:34:21 pm »
I once tried literally to eat every single organ of a carcass. Trouble is, I found testicles, lungs and some connective tissue(by no means all), to be so bland or tasteless that I found it tough to deal with them. If you don't like the stuff, just give it to the dogs.Hmm, on the other hand, some organs might actually improve over time if aged like with "high-meat".

Science / Epigenetics thread
« on: May 29, 2018, 03:16:13 am »
I am making a permanent sticky thread for epigenetics discoveries as there seem to be ever more interesting discoveries:-

I always felt suspicious of Darwinism. I mean it was a lot more credible than absurd Marxist pseudo-theories from the likes of Gould etc., but the idea of random mutations being selected due to natural selection and general randomness made no sense, give the sheer complexity of dna. Anyway, epigenetics is a warning that, even if one has excellent genes, one still can foul up one's future descendants by doing foolish things like smoking etc. I have several cousins, most of whom(and most of their partners) smoke like chimneys, and I already see the inevitable results therefrom in them and their children(ie lowered fertility and asthma, to name just two).

Off Topic / Beware gluten-free/whey-free lies!
« on: May 28, 2018, 08:10:56 pm »

Some of us are forced to eat cooked food at various restaurants sometimes for social reasons. The above is a warning as regards trusting any kind of processing, even in a limited way!

Science / Re: Absurd theory:- Cave-artists were autistic
« on: May 28, 2018, 01:52:19 am »
What I meant was that a lot of genetic diseases are actually environmental in nature...In actual terms, ultimately solveable.

Science / Re: Absurd theory:- Cave-artists were autistic
« on: May 27, 2018, 11:46:32 pm »
This may make you lot laugh, but my own treacherous family pretended to "diagnose" me as being "Asperger's/High-end-Autistic".Some still, insanely, believe it.  The idea being that, if my past health-problems were in fact genetic and not environmental, then their appalling lack of effort to help me in the past would not seem  as evil/twisted as it really was. Asperger's/Autism is a  fake, manufactured so-called "epidemic", which covered up the rise of mental-related issues derived from consumption of cooked-foods etc.

The stag testicles were simply too tough. I did leave them out for a few days but that just made them too rank for me to eat.

When I had that experience with raw grassfed ox liver, I had been eating only that for every alternate week. As a result, I avoided the stuff for ages. I do still eat it, but only  c.300g every few months  at most. If  I overindulge, I get liquid brown diarrhea soon after eating it. Too concentrated for me, I guess. I also poorly absorb raw eggs if I overdo them.

Carnivorous / Zero Carb Approach / Re: Raw brain buying concern?
« on: May 26, 2018, 09:22:59 pm »
Don't you get bored eating same things again and again and again?
Err, no, that's not what "mono-eating" means. It simply means eating 1 type of food at a time. So, I might eat 1 meal of raw swordfish, or raw steak tartare, or raw oysters or  raw wild boar. I also would normally stick to 1 type of organ-meat, if possible. So, I might eat a couple of raw pigs' tongues in 1 meal or 1 raw ox liver at another meal. The main thing is to ensure some variety over the course of each month. I try to include some raw wild game or raw wildcaught seafood as much as possible, though austrian supermarkets tend to provide raw grassfed meat now, and even the non-100% grassfed meat is way superior to what is found in UK or US supermarkets as they still buy from alpine peasant farmers et al.

There have been times when I had very limited variety in the far past. But I have no real problem with eating only raw leg of lamb or raw beef tongue for weeks on end. It's only after a few months that my instincts kick in and I start needing something more.

The tragedy is that there seems to be nothing in Europe like the cow-sharing schemes found in the US to enable raw dairy consumption.I would love paying a farmer to feed a flock of chickens by buying a share of the flock and getting a regular amount of eggs provided that I could dictate what the chickens were fed on, for example.

Science / Whites twice as likely to be addicted to opioids
« on: May 26, 2018, 03:05:20 am »

While the explanations given are truly bad science, there is a point there. I read once that redheads are more  sensitive to pain than other people, for example.

I don't find raw  liver any good in quantity. I eat it only rarely. I used to eat raw liver in large amounts and my body developed diarrhea in order to get rid of it. I love raw marrow, especially ther soft, reddish, creamier kind, not so much the drier variety.I heavily recommend it. Raw blood from raw wild game is especially invigorating, though blood from other sources has always been disappointing. Raw kidneys/raw hearts are also a good idea. Don't eat raw brain from low-quality sources, tastes really bad/bland if you do. Raw tongue is also an excellent food. I also like the white fat on leg of lamb, but not the white fat on beef, for example. My 1 experiment with raw stag testicles was a disaster...

Off Topic / Re: Give us a laugh !
« on: May 23, 2018, 10:05:07 pm »
The importance of teaching your kids the palaeolithic art of swimming:-

I inherited a nasty slow delayed onset allergy towards dairy from my father. It seems our family generally gets it if we suffer some stressful event(such as onset of old age etc.)


More evidence of epigenetics. The point being that the harm done by consumption of cooked foods may well be passed on to the next generation(s) as well even if the person went rawpalaeo well before the conception of his children. I figure at least 3 generations of RPDness are needed to get rid of the epigenetic side-effects of cooked foods consumption.

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.
More nonsense. I had pointed out that a mother would indeed be willing to sacrifice perfectly healthy children in order to save her own life, so that she could bear healthy children in subsequent years. Just a matter of self-interest.
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)
Wrong again. I DO believe that humans will destroy the Earth and themselves.I just think it is worth trying to fight against the inevitability, that's all.As regards aliens, the Fermi Paradox proves the lack of starfaring aliens. It is absurd to assume that an alien species would be 100% benevolent. Being alien, they would not even behave in human terms. Plus, belonging to a civilisation possessing superior technology, they are highly likely to wipe out others by mistake. After all, the definition of technology is the increasing ability to manipulate one's environment.....
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.
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.
I have met quite a number, living in Europe as I do, and being next to areas where they live(Hampstead Heath etc.). None of them portrayed any sign of higher intelligence.Quite the reverse.Which makes sense since inbreeding causes lower intelligence and lower fertility etc.
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.
Having read Haaretz in recent times, I have noted that, in Israel/the US, those Jews with the highest birth-rates are Ashkenazi Jews, so much so that in 1 generation it has been estimated by secular Israelis that Israeli citizens will be 40% Ashkenazi Orthodox Jewish and 40% Arab-Israeli. Also, Ashkenazi Jews form  47.5% of the Israeli Jewish population. The fact that overall average intelligence is so low in Israel, despite such a high percentage of Ashkenazi Jews proves my point. Also, Ashkenazis do not necessarily mix with other types of Jews, indeed there is a lot of racism towards other types in Israel:-
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.
According to scientists studying this topic, they point out that the many genetic diseases that Ashkenazi Jews(and other Jews) have actually led to reduced intelligence, not greater intelligence:-


And of course, your claim that inbreeding to a mild extent like that seen by these groups decreases IQ and longevity is again disproven.
I happen to have read on the subject of inbreeding, and know the facts, unlike you. For example, one of the key characteristics of Jewish law is that an uncle is allowed to marry his niece.:-

The point being that, unlike with Islam which only allows 1st-cousin-marriages, Jewish law allows, er "much further flexibility" as regards incest.So my point that Ashkenazi Jews are severely inbred has been proven beyond doubt:-

Oh,and Jews do indeed have higher rates of infertility, in line with what we know about the effects of inbreeding:-

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.
Meaningless as longevity is not linked to level of inbreeding. Churchill lived till 90 despite being an alcoholic drunkard, incompetent, and a severe cigar-smoker.I did NOT claim that most human ill-health was caused by inbreeding, I merely stated the obvious that inbreeding caused many genetic diseases , especially if the genetically-defective were not weeded out(eg:-


General Discussion / Re: Enema - Colonic administration Guidelines
« on: May 23, 2018, 12:31:55 am »
Given my own past experiences pre-RPD diet, I reckon Van has made  an excellent  point. Even people on SAD diets should only  consider doing enemas as an absolute last resort, and then only if they are willing to try healthier methods re diet etc. afterwards.

Who's talking about a "loss in genetic data"? Unless you mean HER genetic data...

I don't know how to make this more simple so you can understand it. However small the differences from her genetic code to everybody else in the group, if she benefits her offspring more than the group, there will be a higher prevalence of her genetic makeup in the group. If she sacrifices her offspring to benefit the group, the opposite will happen.

Over many generations, those genes that survive and reproduce the most, and become the prevalent ones, are those that make mothers who don't mindlessly sacrifice their children to benefit other women's children; unless in doing so she gains favor with the group so that her future chilldren are allowed to live and/or are better cared for, or have a higher status which will enable them to mate if they're males, or to have their children stay alive and fed if they're female.
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.
But those are all the reasons I've always said exist in nature, whereas yours, which go against the genetic fitness of the entity by needlessly reducing their viable offspring to benefit others, don't.
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.
Now who is the one with human hubris? Haha. You're making assumptions about the motives and behavior of a lifeform we've never encountered, and which would have to be so much beyond our capacities, that they would in effect be gods to us.
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.
What, like the ashkenazis who have the highest average IQ of all races and one of the highest life expectancy? Like the amish who have some of the lowest incidences of most diseases? Not everything is black and white.
  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". Indeed, I read once that the  average IQ of  Israelis is a mere 94 IQ, which makes more sense in the light of inbreeding.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.

Errr no. Again, I have to repeat myself. I didn't say Neanderthals didn't build boats, nor that humans didn't hunt Mammoths. I said it's hard to tell whether they did or did not.
Iit is, however, reasonable to assume in light of Occam's Razor, and the fact that it has been shown that the Aborigines crossed the Ocean in the Palaeolithic with boats.
Even if "raw" intelligence has decreased, abstract concepts intelligence has skyrocketed.
Culture/technology etc.  are separate from intelligence.

Anyway, this is all aside the point. The study I mentioned before indirectly supports the notion that Neanderthals built boats and went thereby to Crete.

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.
Pure bullsh*t. As I pointed out, the genetic variation between 1,000 closely-related individuals is not extreme enough to mean that 1 mother's offspring's death will be a serious loss of genetic data.
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.
All 3  perfectly good enough reasons for a mother to kill her own offspring. And, just a few of the possible other examples...


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)
Again, pure nonsense. If aliens were already here, we would be extinct. Likelihood is, that aliens would have had enough impact on the Earth's ecosystem to wipe out mankind  long ago. Besides, why oh why have we never found genuine evidence of aliens, unless they never came here?
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)
Again, moronically wrong. Just look at this article for confirmation:-

Wrong again, but , in this case, so wrong it is rather painful!
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.
So, at least you admit you were wrong. You admit that ancinet hominids did indeed hunt mammoths etc. So your notions re neanderthals swimming without boats are also obviously deluded.

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.
Wrong again, I have already shown that average human brain-szie/intelligence has decreased greatly since the Neolithic era, along with health/tribal-patterns/diet  etc,

I didn't say it never happens. Now show me an example of this happening in the wild (not in a zoo), where the offspring is healthy, and when then mother has no other offspring to care for and isn't starving herself.

You continue to be blind to the simple biological fact that a mother who sacrifices her own offspring for the benefit of the tribe, unless the tribe as a whole encourages and values that activity, will soon be outcompeted genetically by a mother who does not, and who in fact does everything in her power to benefit her own offspring and not the whole tribe. And so over the generations, the men and women who survived and reproduced, were the children of the mothers who did not sacrifice their offspring to benefit others with nothing to gain for herself and any other offspring of hers.
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!

Here is more info on mothers eliminating their offspring in the wild:-

From an evolutionary standpoint, more numerous means more successful, means more fit to their environment. And most of the health problems come from poor factory farm conditions.

A plant that cannot reproduce without the aid of bees to pollinate their flowers is not automatically "less healthy" than a plant that does its reproduction via wind, simply because the bees are a living organism and the wind is not. Just as there are times when there can be no bees around, there are times when there can be not enough wind around. And bees can carry the pollen further and wider than wind can.

Just as the bee pollinated plants outcompete others if and when there are bees around, domesticated animals and plants succeed and outcompete others when there are humans around. Your blind adherence to wild foods as superior continues to make it impossible for you to understand this simple biological fact.
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.
No, I'm not referring to an outbreeding depression. I'm talking about the fact that humans are less inbred now than they have every been in all of human history, and the trend is towards less inbreeding at an ever scalating pace, with plenty of people now meeting partners during vacation trips or even online, who live great distances from each other and could never have come in contact with one another in paleo times; Yet you insist on blaming the ever increasing health problems on inbreeding. Again you show a complete lack of understanding of what you're even saying.
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. More to the point, outbreeding depression occurs when one has wildly different gene-populations interbreeding with each other, just as you are claiming, which causes other severe problems, in addition to those involved with inbreeding.Past posts have already mentions a myriad mental and physical problems involved with mixed-race offspring for example.


None of us knows how they did it. It's possible they didn't even hunt mammoths, but rather simply waited for them to die of natural causes and then feasted on the carcasses.
Err, dumbass, there are reports of damage to the bones via tools etc.:-

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.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 573