It seems necessary to dedicate a whole section of this site to changing the conception we have about ecology, as in wild animals and wild life.
So this page will mostly serve to flesh out the scientific justification behind the raw paleodiet and the theory of the evolutionary purpose of the secondary purpose of love (metasexuality), by answer the honest question:
If we are right, shouldn’t wild animals (which by definition practice our diet) show all simply no infection parasite or disease of any sort ?
The short answer is: normally, but truly undisturbed environments have become scarce and this is easy to demonstrate. This fact explains most of the contradicting studies published so far. But facts aren’t everything, interpretations make for 60% of science, if not 90% as in social science or psychology, or 100% as in evoluitonary psychology.
Today animals drop in droves in epidemics and studies prove that the parasitic load went through the roof in fish during this century. We can - and will - demonstrate that this nature, this world, is a fallen one, and does not represent what we were meant to live in before cooking or civilization.
If deers or bears die in mass (they don’t) from whatever infection how could we decently claim men shouldn’t thanks to muh raw food ? We couldn’t.
Similarily, we will deal with what people would consider as proofs that animals are cruel and vicious, in particular our cousins.
Our thesis is two-fold.
- Firstly: nature, yet a century, still existed untouched in a few places, and the boundary between the sullied and unsullied was a lot easier to tell. It was exponentially easier yet 60 years ago, to observe in a natural state, in terms of behaviors diet and health.
Today thanks to industrialization the encroaching of men on nature has become nearly total. Pristine nature has become nearly extinct, human depredation (through logging, pollution and poaching) has become extensive to the point that we find significant concentration of plastic bag in the Arctic circle, thousands of miles from any inhabited land, as at the very bottom of the world . Today there is no place however remote, which could by default place observations out of reach of the taint of human interference. Until proved otherwise and explained by a theory based on evolutiary reasoning and our experience of natural food as observed on men (and a few animals as well), no
factis totally beyond our suspicion. Facts lie.
- Secondly, while from the 60ies to 80ies, a deep ecological (close to Rousseau-ist) conscience among scientists could be considered the most vocal or fashionable current of opinion (arguably the one with the biggest impact on public opinions), it seems that it all started to change half-way through the 90s and the consequences can only turn out disastrous in the long run.
A slew of so-called experts (the likes of Richard Wrangham ) endeavoured to undermine those much warranted efforts.
Their collective strategy (no conspiracy theory, this required only a common fundamental hate for nature and dishonesty) consists in two principles:
- falsely representing as
naturalnewly data found in thoroughly damaged environments.
- providing a hugely biased interpretation and abunding in extremely argumentative theories whose only purpose is to warp public perception of nature into a disease-ridden hellscape of violence and rape.
I swear I do not exaggerate in the slightest. Those people are motivated by a deap-seated disgust for nature and human-centric, egotistic supremacist feeling, with modern civilization at the top and nature far far below on the moral. This is very much the continuation of XIXth century’s moral tale of immorale nature vs civilized culture.
For a few decades science has had a remarkably progressist role on the ecological front ([with some mishaps, granted][global warming]) as a public institution, furthering the idea that men’ issues were the product of history, civilization, not of its nature, and that primitive cultures were mostly devoid of our unrest, violence and many of our diseases.
We can see a gradual inversal of those consideration from the 90ies, now depicting apes not as wise ancestors living in a constant paradise (which they are, or should be) but as poor creatures bent constantly striving to survive in a dangerous place among predators pathogens and most of all… their own peers. Human violence and sadism is now increasingly explained as a
genetic legacy from violent ancestors
The problem is wild nature is becoming a distant dream as a we speak:
According to the World Wildlife Fund, more than a quarter of the Amazon rainforest will be devoid of trees by 2030 if cutting continues at the same speed. If nothing is done to stop it, an estimated 40 per cent of this unique forest will be razed by 2050.
Ecological efforts cost a lot and people overall, are unredeemable, egoistical f$cks, that need constant and hard reminding of their duties to fulfill them. Western consciences have proven easy to lull and we appear more than willing to give in to a sense of fatalism to smoothen our guilt while we buy from dictatorial governments selling their primeval forests for muh bucks and turning a blind eye to (or outright paying) organized mafias killing off rare orendangered species in the most barbaric fashion… as is the case with rhinoceroses, elephants, gorillas chimpanzees and orangutans. But nearly all of those countries I mentioned are peopled with inferior Üntermensch hence too racially simply-minded to even have a conscience, if they can even be called
sentient. Not all of them though, Norway China and Japan also butcher endangered whales to death witih explosive harpoons for money.
To oppose those economic interests would require the most relentless propaganda effort to educate Western population, to:
- Invest billions in preservation efforts
- Not ally with corrupt governments
- Overthrow them and colonize Africa again, as well as China for the matter.
the West, even just Europe, has the economical means to do a lot can’t be argued, but we do not want to, without a shadow of a doubt none of the above will come to pass without the political will (and popular backing) of a powerful national-naturalist regime. Sadly though… Wild nature will probably die before.
- My point is
- If we cannot demonstrate that Nature is the originator of all vital balances we claim develop to their utmost point in the raw paleolithic Man, biologically and morally, then the whole intellectual edifice of instinctive paleonutrition and metapsychanalysis would totter on its base.
We saw before how low levels of pollution can induce extremely disturbing behaviors, at odds with anything we would expect from evolution. But it is probable that pollution per se, is not exactly required, and indeed might be challending to detect or argue in favor, as the cause of diseases and other incongruency with the theory of instincto.
It might apply to environments even tens of miles down a river where cities dump waste in one form or another, and obviously any animal close to human habitations will be susceptible to eating unnatural food items, digging out our shit, etc. This undoubtedly accounts for the crippling level of parasitism in commensals like foxes, boars, rabbits (dying of toxoplasmose), etc.
We characterized before how cooking influence our behavior on
. Conversely, we saw how natural behaviors should look from the premises of metasexuality and socio-psychological necessities.
But what if we were to extend this line of reasoning to the whole of the animal realm ? What behaviors should or should not be expected for healthy animals ?
Using on animals these critieria of health (mental and physical) we developped for humans, reveals an horrible conclusion: Not only humans, but a big part of the animal world, is suffering from the effect of cooking, low-level pollution and an unbalanced diet due to environmental destruction and reshaping by humans, sometimes for thousands of years, as long as agriculture has been a thing. This impacts as much their behavior as their health.
Going further: we’ve been eating cooked food for tens of thousands of years, constantly pouring into the environment, sea and rivers, molecules not present naturally in such quantities except rare volcanic eruptions. Obviously industrialism cranked all of this up to eleven.
Could it be that we never saw nature exactly as it’s meant to be (especially near human habitations) for a very, very long time since even the inception of agriculture?
We will develop each of these subtopics (animal health and behavior) in their own article.
Diseases in the Wild
As stated in the introduction and our new theory of the viral phenomenon , hundreds to thousands of sick people have been observed cured of their ailment in a short time, from typically a few weeks for viral diseases, to a few months in a case of DMD (Duchenne muscular dystrophy), where a pre-teen child until then locked to its wheelchair, had regenerated his muscular fibers so much that he could run around a table playing ping-pong for the first time in his life.
Raping Otaries and Psycho Chimps
From metapsychoanalysis, was derived the notion of metapsychic evolutionary principle, and which serves as an heuristic to put in perspective animal behaviors, how likely they are for a given species of a given intelligence and lifespan (in short, its stature on the evolutive ladder) and what eventual discrepancies from expectations could teach us. We view possessing polymorphic sexual instincts (like ours) unrelated to breeding, as an evidence of metapsychic evolution, as the potent sexual drive is transcended and put to a better use.