Saturday, August 19, 2017
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
Is the U.S. is becoming a One Party state, like the former Soviet Block? It seems that increasingly only one party affiliation and set of views – the "liberal" one – is tolerated or acceptable, at least among those who control and deliver education and the mainstream media. Increasingly, academia, media, and public education are controlled by the One Party. This means advancement, entry and employment in these fields is controlled by One Party. Its a kind of "soft" (or perhaps not so soft) thought control. Those who express views not approved by the gate keepers to graduation or employment just don't get good grades, don't get hired, or they may get fired, for having heretical views. The attitude of "You're not welcome here" may also simply discourage any people with alternative views from even applying to work in fields dominated by the One Party.
Is it really desirable to have our educational system – from kindergarten to graduate school – as well as our media controlled by people who all belong to One Party? How is this different from the Soviet or National Socialist systems where all education and media was controlled by One Party?
Main points of this video along with documentation:
25% of sociologists identify as Marxists. Among sociologists, liberals outnumber conservatives 44:1.
Liberal or leftist professors outnumber conservatives 12:1. In 1968 it was only about 3:1.
Liberal or leftist professors of history outnumber conservatives 33:1.
In 2009, only 6% of U.S. scientists identified as Republicans. 55% identify as Democrat. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
More than 90% of public school teachers vote Democrat. 79% identify as Democrat.
Out of all reporters for MSM, only 7% identify as Republican. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/
“while the majority of journalists described themselves as moderate, they were clearly to the left of the public.” http://www.journalism.org/2006/10/06/the-american-journalist/
Among journalists, editors, reporters, donors from journalism, 96% donated to Democrat party.
Fascism is a collectivist ideology. "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax." http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Almost all early fascists were Marxists. “Nazism” is short for National SOCIALISM. (Why don't the advocates of socialism acknowledge this?) Hitler was a socialist who based his collectivism on nationality; Marx, Lenin and Stalin based their socialism on class.
From a new article on DietDoctor.com: Can a Keto Diet treat Brain Cancer?
"Taking into account other types of cancer — including lung, breast, pancreatic, prostate and melanoma — a total of 23 clinical trials are currently registered at clinicaltrials.gov that are investigating the ketogenic diet as an adjunct to standard cancer therapy. Over the last decade, research investigating the ketogenic’s diet role in basic cancer research and in emerging therapies has burgeoned, with more than 170 studies or theoretical papers currently in the research literature. The number is increasing each month."
Why is there so much research on ketogenic diets for cancer, not so much on high carbohydrate diets (grain-based, macrobiotic, vegan, etc.)? Simply because it is a fact that cancer cells are glucose-dependent whereas healthy cells are not, so restricting glucose will harm cancer cells but not healthy cells.
The only way to get a metabolic effect similar to a ketogenic diet while eating a high carbohydrate diet like the usual grain-based macrobiotic or vegan diet is to severely restrict food (calorie) intake so that you rapidly lose body mass, forcing your body to get most of its energy from animal fat, i.e. the fat on your own body. I think this explains why most if not all reports of some success in controlling cancer with plant based diets (whether macrobiotic, raw, vegan, etc.) indicate that the subject has a dramatic loss of body weight during the "healing" phase.
The problem with a carbohydrate based diet for cancer management is that you can't starve yourself forever. At some point you have to start eating a sufficient number of calories to maintain health and function of non-cancerous tissues. If you do this with a glucose-rich diet such as the grain-based macrobiotic diet, you will recreate the conditions that favor the glucose-hungry cancer cells.
I hypothesize that this is why cancer has emerged in and even taken the lives of several prominent promoters of the grain-based macrobiotic diet, including among the Kushi family.
Michio Kushi, promoter of the grain-based macrobiotic diet, and author of The Cancer Prevention Diet, which advocated a grain-based diet for prevention of cancer, died at 88 years from pancreatic cancer after a bout with colon cancer.
Michio's wife Aveline and daughter Lily both died after developing cervical cancer. As discussed in the linked article, cervical cancer is primarily linked to HPV, which according to conventional medicine is strongly linked to sexual promiscuity and transmission.
Apparently cancer has also claimed the lives of several women who were highly faithful to a vegan macrobiotic diet and long-term teachers of macrobiotic cooking classes at the Kushi Institute.
The underlying hypothesis that animal fat and protein cause and promote cancer lacks a strong scientific basis. If it were so, fasting, which is running on your own body fat and protein, which are ANIMAL fat and protein, would promote cancer, when in fact it is well established that short-term fasting (i.e. running your body exclusively on mammalian fat and protein) strongly undermines cancer cells but preserves healthy cells.