Tuesday, October 25, 2016

EPA Report: Agriculture and livestock only minor sources of greenhouse gases.

According to an U.S. EPA report released this year – "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2014" – claims that livestock (specifically, cattle) are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and putative global warming are bunk.

The EPA states that 84% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.A. were produced by the energy sector, and 76% by fossil fuel combustion.

According to Table 2-3 and figure 2-10, only 8.3% of GHG emissions came from agriculture activities, and only 2.4% by enteric fermentation or “cow burps.”  The total energy sector contribution was 10 times that of all agriculture. 

The GHG contribution of livestock was about the same as the emissions from waste disposal and processing including landfills, wastewater treatment, and composting.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Study: Honey has broad-spectrum antimicrobial and wound healing properties.

Honey comb.  By GFDL 1.2, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=882484

A study published in Frontiers in Microbiology reports that honey is returning to rival antibiotics as a treatment for antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections and wound healing: 

Honey has "a broad spectrum of action that is unlike any known antimicrobial" and so far no one has been able to generate a honey-resistant strain of bacteria.

Some, perhaps all vegans would reject the use of honey because it exploits the labor of bees.  Is saving humans from potentially disfiguring or deadly MDR microbial infections less important than avoiding bee exploitation?

Friday, October 21, 2016

Study: European Monogamy The Basis of a Free Society

The Peasant Wedding.  By Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1526/1530–1569) - Google Art Project: Home – pic Maximum resolution., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20361036

We have evidence that exogamous monogamy with a nuclear family was practiced in Germanic Europe 4,600 years ago, well before the introduction of Christianity.  

Henrich et al. note that

"While the roots of the package of norms and institutions that constitute modern marriage can be traced back to classical Greece and Rome [6,7], the global spread of this peculiar marriage system [6] has occurred only in recent centuries, as other societies sought to emulate the West, with laws prohibiting polygyny arriving in 1880 in Japan, 1953 in China, 1955 in India and 1963 in Nepal."
I think few people realize the social and biological benefits of monogamy.  In fact, so-called "progressives" even believe that monogamy is "over-rated" and want to legalize polygamy, claiming that:

"Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families."

These people aren't aware that polygamy has been practiced in Asia and the Middle East for a long time, and it didn't produce the "sex-positive, child-friendly" utopia they imagine. Moreover, evolutionary psychology refutes the polygamist progressives.   

In contrast to polygamy, the standard for 85 per cent of societies in the anthropological record – including the Hebrews of the Old Testament –  Henrich et al. have shown that monogamy, the standard of European civilization, has enormous social benefits:

"In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide." 
In history, polygamous cultures always resulted in a large population of unmarried males and dramatically increases the competition between males for female mates.

"Faced with high levels of intra-sexual competition and little chance of obtaining even one long-term mate, unmarried, low-status men will heavily discount the future and more readily engage in risky status-elevating and sex-seeking behaviours. This will result in higher rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of females), sexual slavery and prostitution. As a by-product, these men will probably engage in more substance abuse."
 Polygamy also increases intra-household conflict that results in injury to both women and children:

"Co-wife conflict is ubiquitous in polygynous households. From anthropology, a review of ethnographic data from 69 non-sororal polygynous societies from around the globe [66] reveals no case where co-wife relations could be described as harmonious, and no hint that women's access to the means of production had any mitigating impact on conflict. Consistent with this, an in-depth study of a fundamentalist Mormon community in the US [67] found substantial conflict among co-wives. "
The conflict occurs because the co-wives compete for the husband's attention, and because each wife is motivated to promote the interests of her children, but to undermine the interests of the children of other wives since she has no genetic investment in those children of co-wives.  Hence, any individual wife has a biological motivation to injure the children of other co-wives:

"Living in the same household with genetically unrelated adults is the single biggest risk factor for abuse, neglect and homicide of children. Stepmothers are 2.4 times more likely to kill their stepchildren [71] than birth mothers, and children living with an unrelated parent are between 15 and 77 times more likely to die ‘accidentally’ [72].

"Converging with these ideas is long-term research in the Caribbean, which shows how different household compositions impact cortisol levels (a stress hormone) in children. Children in nuclear families with only genetic parents showed the lowest cortisol levels. By contrast, children in households with distant relatives, stepfathers and half-siblings showed the highest cortisol levels of any household composite in the sample [73]. This suggests that the children of polygynous households will run higher cortisol levels owing to the presence of unrelated mothers and half-siblings."
 Monogamy also increases the father's investment in children.  Rather than competing with other males and seeking more wives, male energy is directed into increasing the success rate of the children he has with one wife.  Since more males are invested in children in a monogamous culture than in a polygamous culture, they are motivated to keep a crime-free, peaceful society that protects the children they have.  In a society that allows polygamy, the unmarried males do not have investment in peace or prosperity, but have a perverse motivation toward rape, crime and war because they have nothing to lose. 

Most importantly, monogamy is the probable foundation of free societies:

"In closing, it is worth speculating that the spread of normative monogamy, which represents a form of egalitarianism, may have helped create the conditions for the emergence of democracy and political equality at all levels of government [7,91]. Within the anthropological record, there is a statistical linkage between democratic institutions and normative monogamy [92]. Pushing this point, these authors argue that dissipating the pool of unmarried males weakens despots, as it reduces their ability to find soldiers or henchman. Reduced crime would also weaken despots' claims to be all that stands between ordinary citizens and chaos. Historically, we know that universal monogamous marriage preceded the emergence of democratic institutions in Europe, and the rise of notions of equality between the sexes (see our historical sketch in the electronic supplementary material). In Ancient Greece, we do not know which came first but we do know that Athens, for example, had both elements of monogamous marriage and of democracy. In the modern world, analyses of cross-national data reveal positive statistical relationships between the strength of normative monogamy with both democratic rights and civil liberties [65]. In this sense, the peculiar institutions of monogamous marriage may help explain why democratic ideals and notions of equality and human rights first emerged in the West [6]."
 So "progressive" proponents of polygamy want to destroy monogamy, likely the very essential basis of a free society.  They want to turn the West into a society that favors the chaotic despotism that characterizes all non-Western cultures.

They don't have a clue what they are asking for.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

What is Virtue? Part 2

In Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (PPNF, 11th Printing, 1982, p. 419), Weston Price wrote:

"Ernest Thompson Seton has beautifully expressed the spirit of the Indian in the opening paragraph of his little book 'The Gospel of the Red Man':  
  The culture and civilization of the White man are essentially material; his measure of success is, 'How much property have I acquired for myself?'  The culture of the Red man is fundamentally spiritual; his measure of success is 'How much service have I rendered to my people?'"
 I disagree with the idea that the culture and civilization of the White man is essentially material.

The culture of materialism is not the native culture of the White man.   It is a culture imposed upon White man.

Neanderthals, the ancestors of Europeans, were practicing burial rituals as long as 300,000 years ago, and may have been the first humans to do so. These burial rituals indicated that traditional Europeans had a concept of reincarnation.

Anyone who knows pagan Greek and Roman culture and civilization would know that the civilization of the White man is not essentially material.  Socrates was not a materialist; Pythagorus was not a materialist; Plato was not a materialist; Aristotle was not a materialist; pagan European religion (Nordic, Germanic, Greek, etc.) did not promote materialism; the pagan Stoics were not materialists.

A search of pagan White philosophy and religion finds little support for the idea that the culture of White man is essentially materialistic. 

White man was forced to give up his original pagan culture by traitors who had embraced Christianity, which is in fact a sect of messianic Judaism, native to the Middle East, not to the native land of the White man: Europe.

The Christians persecuted and waged war on the indigenous people of Europe, forcing them to abandon their own native religion, their native soul, and slaughtering resisters, and as many as 4500 at a time.  After that came the fires, burning "heretics" and "witches" at the stake, and burning books that would have preserved European pagan knowledge and would have proved that Christians lied over and over about pagan customs and beliefs.

Even under threat of death, Europeans refused to stop celebrating their high holidays such as Celtic Samhain (Halloween or All Saints Day), Germanic Yule (Christmas), and the Teutonic spring equinox festival of Eostre (Easter). These rituals are not materialistic; they arose from a deep spiritual understanding of reincarnation.

The Christians followed up their military and cultural "crusades" with 2 millennia of continual propaganda, derision and defamation of pre-Christian Europeans, programming European children to believe the complete LIE that before being "saved" by the Middle Eastern monotheist religions, Europeans were the most vile, disgusting, immoral, stupid and superstitious people on the planet.  What psychological projection.

And Christians are still busy culturally conquering Asians and Africans and destroying their indigenous (non-Christian) culture. If the locals resist the advance of the Christian invaders, they are labelled terrorists or "intolerant" for wanting to protect their own indigenous culture. But its not the pagan polytheists who are intolerant; they only fight those who would destroy their own culture, in justified self-defense.  Its among the monotheists, the Christians and Islamists that arise those who can not and will not tolerate any other culture anywhere on the planet, and want everyone to have one faith, one culture, even if they have to use the sword to get "conversions." 

The Christian crusades against indigenous European paganism left the European soul in the spiritual desert for thousands of years, thirsting for the Truth.  Hebrew desert religions just do not fit the European.  This is why, once it is no longer forced on them, Europeans eventually give up on Christianity. If they don't become materialistic nihilistic atheists, they look for nourishment in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Sufism, and a myriad other other foreign religions. But none of these non-European religions really fit the European spirit.  Their own traditions have been co-opted, corrupted, and concealed from their rightful heirs by the self-proclaimed "tolerant and loving" Christians. 

Christianity is of desert origin, not the indigenous religion of the forest-born people of Europe, and it "fits" Europeans only insofar as it incorporates pagan religion and morality (e.g. Catholic or Orthodox ritualism).  Just as computer hardware can malfunction when loaded with incompatible software, the European person will malfunction when loaded with incompatible belief systems. European paganism is the original compatible software.

The Renaissance was a revival of European paganism after the dark ages during which the European spirituality was oppressed and suppressed by Christianity. 

In spite of being infected with a foreign ideological virus, White people have produced an enormous body of literature and music that celebrates non-material values; this is because White people have an inborn sense of spirituality, manifested in European folktales, music, and architecture.  White people invented protection of wild places and appear far more concerned with protection of endangered species than non-White people. 

Yet, for millennia and still today, White people, and especially White men, have been told that White ancestors were disgusting savages before adopting the foreign Christian ideology, and still disgusting afterwards.

Seton praised the Red man for organizing his life around service to his people – his ethnic tribe, his ethnic nation, i.e. Red people; but if a modern White man were to organize his life around the principle that all his actions should be service to his own people – his ethnic nation, i.e. White people – he would be called a racist or Nazi.

Because White people are told that White people and White culture are evil.  So White people are not allowed to be "spiritual" via service to their people.

White people are on the contrary told that they must serve non-White people and adopt non-White culture and stop having White children in order to atone for all the sins of their ancestors.

This, White people are told, is "virtue": to hate, demean, and sacrifice White people, and destroy evil White culture and civilization, and hand the native lands of White people (especially Europe) over to non-Whites. 

Is it any surprise then that, severed from their spiritual roots, told that they are evil incarnate, and dominated by a foreign desert ideology, White people turn to materialism?

If you don't believe that your people are worthy of existing, and you are punished if you want to serve and preserve your people, then why would you do anything to serve them?

This is the virus responsible for so-called "White materialism."

It is time for White men and women to ask:  "How much service have I rendered to my people?"

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Should Danes Eat Like Greeks?, or, Is Dietary Universalism Rational?

There exists in modern thought a strong tide of universalism, an attitude that there is or should be one way of life that is best for all people everywhere on Earth.  I believe this belief in universalism has its roots in Christianity, a religion that maintains that everyone should have one universal faith.

In recent years, the Mediterranean diet has been the favored nutritional regime.  Everyone should eat like a person who lives around the Mediterranean ocean.

Vegans also tend to promote the idea that everyone, everywhere, can and should eat a diet free of animal flesh, eggs, and milk.  

Is this logical or realistic?  Can we really expect people in Nordic nations to eat like Greeks?

Macrobiotic principles include eating locally produced foods in proportions determined by their natural availability.  Locally produced foods are adapted to the local climate, and impart their qualities to the people who consume them.  Bananas may be good for people in the tropics, but not for people in Canada.  Northern people need more warming (yang) foods, while southern people need more cooling (yin) foods.  Nature meets the needs because only more yang plants (e.g. oats, cranberries, cabbage, blueberries, hazelnuts) and animals (e.g. salmon, cod, reindeer) can thrive in northern regions, while more yin plants (e.g. coconuts, mangos, spinach, corn) and animals (e.g. catfish) abound in hot tropical regions. Moreover, northern regions produce more edible fauna than edible flora. 

People in Nordic nations can't locally produce many of the components of a Mediterranean diet, and Nature puts a limit on their production of plant foods. In addition, Nordic people very likely are genetically adapted in some way to the diet naturally produced in the north, since they have descended from people who lived in the north for as long as 300,000 years (Neanderthals).

Bere and Brug note:

So, to eat a Mediterranean or vegan diet, Norwegians would have to largely or completely abandon foods they can produce locally–wild game, pasture-fed animal products, and wild and farmed fish–and rely on foods they can't produce themselves.

 Bere and Brug suggest some guidelines for developing healthy and environmentally-friendly regional diets (you can substitute any other region for "Nordic countries"):
Using these criteria, they identify the following components of a healthy Nordic diet:

1. Native Berries
2.  Cabbage (in all its forms, e.g. cabbage, kale, Brussels sprouts, broccoli, radish, rutabaga, turnip, mustard, etc.)
3.  Native fish and seafoods
4.  Wild game and pasture-fed animals
5.  Rapeseed oil
6.  Oats, barley, and rye

Other groups defining a healthy, locally producible Nordic diet also include carrots, apples and pears among the foods easily grown in Nordic nations.  I would also add honey which Nordic people can use to replace all the sugar they import.

Regarding native berries, Norway already produces enough berries to give every Norwegian two servings daily:
They also already produce 76% of the cabbage they consume:
They apparently could grow more cabbage.

Native fish and seafood is abundant enough that they export 95% of their catch:
By exporting less of their fish, they would reduce their dependence on imported foods.

The Nordic countries have large tracts of land that are not suitable for agriculture but serve well as pastures for both wild and domesticated animals:
Like other cabbage-family plants, rapeseed grows well and production is increasing in Nordic nations:

Currently, Nordic nations consume more wheat than rye, barley or oats, all of which grow better than wheat in the Nordic regions.  Most of the latter three are being fed to animals:

By consuming less grain-fed animal products, Nordic people can increase the amount of land available for growing berries, cabbages, rapeseed, oats, barley, and rye, thus shifting from dependence on imported grains, fruits and vegetables to a more local, sustainable diet:

It is a simple biological reality that it would be impossible for Nordic nations to produce a locally grown Mediterranean or vegan diet.  To subsist on local foods, they must consume animal products.

As Olsen et al. note:

Nordic people who adhere more closely to a healthy Nordic food diet consisting of locally sourced wild fish, cabbages, rye bread, oatmeal, apples and pears, local berries, and root vegetables have a lower annual rate of deaths from all causes compared to those who eat less plant foods and more grain-fed land animal products and saturated fats.[1, 2]

Should Nordic nations exchange food independence for adherence to a foreign Mediterranean diet or vegan morality/ideology? 

I don't think so.  If a people is dependent on foreign imports for food, it is extremely vulnerable to food catastrophe and political manipulations.  Why should any people put themselves at risk of starvation due to naturally or politically-caused crop failures in other nations far, far away?

One size does not fit all, and in my view, human independence and liberty have much higher value than animal interests.  Yes, I am biased in favor of my own species.  Its entirely natural; if our ancestors hadn't favored humanity over other animals, we wouldn't be here today.

It is important to note that favoring one's own kind is not the same as wanting to wantonly exterminate all other kinds.  

According to Confucian scholar Chén Huan-Chang, in the Canon of History there exists the “Announcement About Drunkenness,” in which Chang Shih (1133-1180 A.D.) states:

“For instance, in the use of meats and drinks, there is such a thing as wildly abusing and destroying the creatures of Heaven.  The Buddhists, disliking this, confine themselves to a vegetable diet, while our Confucians only keep away from wild abuse and destruction.”[3]

Let our empathy for animals keep us from wild abuse and destruction of them, without devolving into Pathological Altruism.


1.  Olsen A, Egeberg R, Halkjær J, et al.. Healthy aspects of the Nordic diet are related to lower total mortality. J Nutr. 2011 Apr 1;141(4):639-44. 
2.  Roswall N, Sandin S, Löf M, et al..  Adherence to the healthy Nordic food index and total and cause-specific mortality among Swedish women. Eur J Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;30(6):509-17.
3.  Huang-Chang C.  The Economic Principles of Confucius and His School. Columbia University, Longmans, Green & Company, Agents, 1911. 191.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

What is Virtue? Part 1

Herakles, Divine Protector of Mankind.  By Paul Stevenson - http://www.flickr.com/photos/pss/3637104088/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9924526

Like it or not, the word "virtue" comes from the Latin
"...virtutem (nominative virtus) "moral strength, high character, goodness; manliness; valor, bravery, courage (in war); excellence, worth," which in turn comes from the root vir "man."
"Virtue" is thus related to virile which has cognates in several European languages:
"characteristic of a man; marked by manly force," from Middle French viril (14c.) and directly from Latin virilis "of a man, manly, worthy of a man," from vir "a man, a hero," from PIE *wi-ro- "man, freeman" (source also of Sanskrit virah, Avestan vira-, Lithuanian vyras, Old Irish fer, Welsh gwr, Gothic wair, Old English wer "man"). 
Thus, virtue originally refers to manliness and in particular, strength and courage.

In antiquity, an exemplary or heroic woman was respectfully called a virago.

"A woman, however, if exceptional enough could earn the title virago. In doing so, she surpassed the expectations for what was believed possible for her gender, and embodied masculine-like aggression and/or excellence. Virago, then, was a title of respect and admiration."
But it is important to note that in European antiquity, women (femina) were not held to the military standard of virtue expected of men.  Make no mistake, both men and women were encouraged to live noble and virtuous lives, to be noblemen and noblewomen, but traditionally women were not expected to live up to the same standards of strength, bravery and courage in combat as men.

The Greek word for virtue is aretê.  The goddess, or more correctly, personified spirit (daimona) Arete "was depicted as a fair woman of high bearing, dressed in white."

Her opposite was the daimona Kakia (Cacia), lady of vice.  

Xenophon (5th-4th century BCE) wrote that the Sophist Prodikos gave an account of these opposing spirits in an essay entitled On Herakles.  In this story, Herakles, coming upon the age of manhood, goes to a quiet place to contemplate whether he will, as a man, take the path of virtue, or the path of vice.

As Herakles meditates on his question, he sees two women "of great stature" approach him.  One "was fair to see and of high bearing; and her limbs were adorned with purity, her eyes with modesty; sober was her figure, and her robe was white."  The other:
 "...was plump and soft, with high feeding. Her face was made up to heighten its natural white and pink, her figure to exaggerate her height. Open-eyed was she; and dressed so as to disclose all her charms. Now she eyed herself; anon looked whether any noticed her; and often stole a glance at her own shadow."
Source: Greek mythology Wikia

 The dignified one was Arete; the conceited whore was Kakia.

"When they drew nigh to Herakles, the first pursued the even tenor of her way: but the other, all eager to outdo her, ran to meet him, crying : ‘Herakles, I see that you are in doubt which path to take towards life. Make me your friend; follow me, and I will lead you along the pleasantest and easiest road. You shall taste all the sweets of life; and hardship you shall never know. First, of wars and worries you shall not think, but shall ever be considering what choice food or drink you can find, what sight or sound will delight you, what touch or perfume; what tender love can give you most joy, what bed the softest slumbers; and how to come by all these pleasures with least trouble. And should there arise misgiving that lack of means may stint your enjoyments, never fear that I may lead you into winning them by toil and anguish of body and soul. Nay; you shall have the fruits of others' toil, and refrain from nothing that can bring you gain. For to my companions I give authority to pluck advantage where they will.’"

When Kakia finishes her attempted seduction, Arete addresses Herakles thus:
"‘I, too, am come to you, Herakles: I know your parents and I have taken note of your character during the time of your education. Therefore I hope that, if you take the road that leads to me, you will turn out a right good doer of high and noble deeds, and I shall be yet more highly honoured and more illustrious for the blessings I bestow. But I will not deceive you by a pleasant prelude: I will rather tell you truly the things that are, as the gods have ordained them. For of all things good\par and fair, the gods give nothing to man without toil and effort. If you want the favour of the gods, you must worship the gods: if you desire the love of friends, you must do good to your friends: if you covet honour from a city, you must aid that city: if you are fain to win the admiration of all Hellas [Greece] for virtue, you must strive to do good to Hellas: if you want land to yield you fruits in abundance, you must cultivate that land: if you are resolved to get wealth from flocks, you must care for those flocks: if you essay to grow great through war and want power to liberate your friends and subdue your foes, you must learn the arts of war from those who know them and must practice their right use: and if you want your body to be strong, you must accustom your body to be the servant of your mind, and train it with toil and sweat.’"
In response, Kakia makes another attempt at seduction:
 "‘Herakles, mark you how hard and long is that road to joy, of which this woman tells? but I will lead you by a short and easy road to happiness.’"
And before Herakles takes the bait, Arete puts Kakia in perspective:
 "‘What good thing is thine, poor wretch, or what pleasant thing dost thou know, if thou wilt do nought to win them? Thou dost not even tarry for the desire of pleasant things, but fillest thyself with all things before thou desirest them, eating before thou art hungry, drinking before thou art thirsty, getting thee cooks, to give zest to eating, buying thee costly wines and running to and fro in search of snow in summer, to give zest to drinking; to soothe thy slumbers it is not enough for thee to buy soft coverlets, but thou must have frames for thy beds. For not toil, but the tedium of having nothing to do, makes thee long for sleep. Thou dost rouse lust by many a trick, when there is no need, using men as women: thus thou trainest thy friends, waxing wanton by night, consuming in sleep the best hours of day. Immortal art thou, yet the outcast of the gods, the scorn of good men. Praise, sweetest of all things to hear, thou hearest not: the sweetest of all sights thou beholdest not, for never yet hast thou beheld a good work wrought by thyself. Who will believe what thou dost say? who will grant what thou dost ask? Or what sane man will dare join thy throng? While thy votaries are young their bodies are weak, when they wax old, their souls are without sense; idle and sleek they thrive in youth, withered and weary they journey through old age, and their past deeds bring them shame, their present deeds distress. Pleasure they ran through in their youth: hardship they laid up for their old age. But I company with gods and good men, and no fair deed of god or man is done without my aid. I am first in honour among the gods and among men that are akin to me: to craftsmen a beloved fellow-worker, to masters a faithful guardian of the house, to servants a kindly protector: good helpmate in the toils of peace, staunch ally in the deeds of war, best partner in friendship. To my friends meat and drink bring sweet and simple enjoyment: for they wait till they crave them. And a sweeter sleep falls on them than on idle folk: they are not vexed at awaking from it, nor for its sake do they neglect to do their duties. The young rejoice to win the praise of the old; the elders are glad to be honoured by the young; with joy they recall their deeds past, and their present well-doing is joy to them, for through me they are dear to the gods, lovely to friends, precious to their native land. And when comes the appointed end, they lie not forgotten and dishonoured, but live on, sung and remembered for all time. O Herakles, thou son of goodly parents, if thou wilt labour earnestly on this wise, thou mayest have for thine own the most blessed happiness.’"

So, deep in the European pagan soul, self-reliance, industriousness, temperance in food and sex, loyalty, friendliness, honesty, discipline, courage, martial artistry, physical fitness training, service to one's people and honor all are manifestations of manliness, excellence, VIRTUE.

Self-indulgence, laziness, hedonism, weakness, meekness, intemperance in food and sex, living at the expense and taking advantage of others for one's own benefit – basically, all the values promoted by Hollywood, feminism and socialism – all are manifestations of weakness and VICE.

Since, thanks to 2 millennia of lies and propaganda, many people believe that Europeans were vicious, hedonistic barbarians before being yoked by wholly foreign Middle Eastern Abrahamic doctrines, I want to emphasize, this is PAGAN religion and morality, at least 5 centuries before Christianity – a.k.a. Messianic Judaism – emerged and became the state religion of Rome.

European pagans had high morals and never needed so-called "redemption" by Christianity.


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Study: European light skin may partially be an adaptation to a farmed plant-based diet

In "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y" Wilde et al. suggest that, in addition to low sunlight exposure, a transition to farming exerted a selection pressure in favor of less skin melanin in the evolution of Europeans:

This hypothesis may explain why Northern populations that did not transition to farming – such as Mongolians, Eskimos, and the Eurasian tribes that populated North America – have retained darker skin until present times, while Europeans became white.  

This could mean that white Europeans are descendants of ancestors specifically adapted to a more plant-based agricultural diet providing less dietary vitamin D than a hunter-fisher-gatherer diet would provide.

This evidence-based hypothesis suggests that modern white Europeans may be more highly genetically adapted to a farmed, highly plant-based diet than to an animal-based hunter-fisher-gatherer diet.  It casts additional doubt on the paleolithic diet hypothesis that modern people, particularly modern white Europeans, should avoid farmed foods such as whole grains and legumes, and stick to the diet eaten by (dark-skinned) hunter-gatherers 50,000 years ago.