All authority belongs to the people.Thomas Jefferson
No, this isn’t a post about your new AyePhone, Andross, Strawberry, or whatever. It’s a post about deriving ideas, opinions, and conclusions with and from a clean slate – and from the bottom up, not the top down.
It’s a post about
- God
- Grub
- and Government.
Mostly grub and government. God, not so much, but it’s relevant per this interview with Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead.
From the video …
You can’t prove there isn’t [a god].
-Phil Donahue
You are never called upon to prove a negative … that’s, a law of logic.
-Ayn Rand
I’ll say it again, I’m not here to discuss “god” beyond what is relevant for the rest of the discussion. It’s simply not something I think about.
What I am here to discuss is applying this same principle to nutrition (grub), and the written constitution of the voluntarily created federal union that is the united States of America (government).
In this sense, my tolerance for defensively battling conventional wisdom head on has grown thin. Unless I am being paid fiat dollars, or otherwise being compensated for my time, I have very little interest in regurgitating what others have said much more eloquently over the past few years (and in some cases, decades, or in even rarer cases, centuries) – or better yet, using my precious little time on this earth doing anything but what I see as the best use of that time.
I have tackled conventional wisdom on multiple fronts to the point of becoming intellectually nauseous, which I deem to be a very good thing. “Good” because it has led to a personal discovery of how and why to argue a point (which I’m sure has been discussed elsewhere, but this is my own spin on it regardless).
- The “how” is anything but defensively – barring an intentional and defined reason for doing so.
- The “why” has to do with the basic premise of a particular point of view.
If another person or party is arguing from the same basic premise – and it is not without foundation – debate to your hearts delight.
If you discover they are not operating on the same premise (and in itself, their premise poses no cause to question your own), or that their premise is entirely without foundation, you have three options.
- Discuss the (as of yet) unspoken difference in basic premise (or lack of base for theirs)
- Stop debating all together
- Argue into an intellectual abyss
Option one is for the patient individual with free time to spare, and a desire to improve the situation.
Option two is for the individual lacking spare time at present and/or a desire to improve the situation.
Option three is for the person interested in wasting a massive amount of time.
Contrary to the abrasive nature of the way it has been written above, this is actually irrelevant of the individual on the opposing end of the discussion.
If you don’t agree on a basic premise you might as well have General Hammond warp you through the middle of a black hole.
You’re simply arguing details which are inconsequential to changing a rational person’s opinion. You can both debate till your blue in the face – barring random chance of multiple, overlapping threads of reasoning, you might as well be talking to a brick wall.
The Grub
“Paleo nutrition through the lens of modern medicine.”
Regarding the above statement, I am referencing the best human diet possible – regardless of one’s goals and aims: competitive, environmental, and otherwise – and it’s demand to originate from a thorough and wise look at our evolution, in combination with our modern understanding of biological processes.
In other words, look to the past for a nutritional base to build upon, and use modern advances in technology and thought to top it off.
Two men that do this extraordinarily well are Mark Sisson and Kurt Harris MD. (Runner up: Doug McGuff MD, with regards to his Diet DVD, both impressive in explanation and comprehensive in content).
Now, what does this look like in practice?
Well, it depends on who you ask. I have my own ideas that you can read about or even watch on video. And it certainly doesn’t end with me, or even any of the above mentioned men. The “paleo community” is large and highly diverse in all senses of the term.
Yet, I am not here to discuss the “paleo community”, nor the agreements and disagreements thereof.
What I am here to openly and clearly state is that the conventional wisdom of our day regarding nutrition is entirely lacking foundation and should be immediately and wholly rejected on all fronts for your own sake and the sake of your posterity.
Current mainstream ideas on nutrition – headed by monopolies on force (government), and private bureaucracies – are …
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Conventional wisdom regarding nutrition (on all fronts), literally represents a bastion of ignorance, mysticism, and in some (many?) cases, outright stupidity.
…
It’s been said that if the best minds of our day could devise the absolute worst series of decisions possible by the federal union of these States united – and only with the past decade in mind – the decisions those individuals would make would be remarkably similar to, if not exactly what the federal government HAS done over these past ~10 years.
Similarly, if the best minds of our day gathered to devise the absolute worst nutritional recommendations possible for the individual, for “society”, and for the environment – the results in my opinion would be remarkably similar to what governments worldwide – and equally influential bureaucracies – have come up with.
The notion that a nutritional recommendation in disagreement to any degree (up to and including diametric opposition of) with the conventional position, would require intense and “extraordinary” support, is laughable beyond all measure. That’s the equivalent of requesting someone to prove god doesn’t exist.
It’s absurd – you can’t prove “god” exists in the first place.
In this sense I am proposing that the conventional wisdom surrounding nutrition and related subjects currently, is a negative, and requires absolutely zero refutation.
Conventional wisdom in all its nutritional forms, is in my eyes, hereby, completely null and void.
It is one of the largest piles and clearest depictions of intellectual trash and constipation in all of history.
What was once only horrifically bad science has now exponentially mutated over the course of a few decades into an ideological plague that has brought the civilized world to its knees in poor health, confusion, and apathy.
I refuse to further knowledge the validity of something with NO FOUNDATION beyond that of a psychological house of cards, coming from collective think tanks (collectivized well beyond the minimum amount necessary for the benefit of parties involved) that represent the pinnacle of all things “stupid”.
While I sympathize with requests to refute 40+ years of poor judgment , my sympathy adds no validity to the request itself.
I will not further attempt to disprove conventional wisdom in nutrition any sooner than I would attempt to disprove the existence of “god”.
The task is absurd (barring intentional and defined purposes), and more people need to realize this the next time their friends and family start grilling them on their eating habits.
You are not on the defensive.
You need not intellectually defend eating in accordance with evolution, filtered through modern biology, than you do the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in accordance with your own values.
You can if you choose of course, just do so with clearly defined purpose and intent.
The Government
In an effort to keep this post moderate in length, I would like to immediately introduce the idea that virtually all of the above, directly applies to the general (read: federal, not national, the latter of which is not authorized by our supreme law) government of these States united.
In this sense – and as was requested recently in one of the largest discussions on my personal Facebook account ever (see above picture) – no defense is required to defend the statement that the “federal government is broken in every way”, and has absolutely negligible respect left for the contract that binds it.
For one, it is utterly absurd to think that this should EVER be required by the people and states who populate the federal union itself. The general government is delegated only certain, limited powers, with all other powers residing in the states and people respectively.
Every action taken by the federal government must either be authorized in the constitution, or justified as being within the restraints of the document (or, an amendment must be made to the contract).
In other words, the federal government should always be on the defensive and justifying its actions as its powers are NOT unlimited and indefinite.
What’s more, the unconstitutional and illegal nature of the current federal government is so blindingly obvious, I question any person’s ability to discern useful information should they be aware of and educated on the factual history of our country and the current rule of law that governs the general government.
Unfortunately, most people are not, in which case the individual is either totally ignorant, lost in a sea of ambiguity and contradiction, apathetic, or some combination thereof.
In all cases, the federal government is so far outside it’s clearly defined limitations, we are long past the point of generously pointing out for them that they are a “bit out of line”.
Unconstitutional acts by the federal government of these States united, in the past 10 years alone have led to a modern day, middle eastern holocaust, the outright dismissal of freedom (that the founding generation of our union fought, bled, and died for), and the implied, de facto, state ownership of the individual.
This is accomplished through the “constitutionality of a draft” (for a constitution and country founded on the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this is beyond oxy-moronic), the theft of labor by force of a gun (income tax), and most recently, the acclaimed authority of the general government to force the individual citizens it derives its power from, to purchase a private product with whatever wealth they have left after it’s taken with the force of a gun, if necessary.
Essentially, you don’t even have the freedom to spend the fiat money they let you keep.
This is so repulsive and in defiance of our written law it defies proper description.
…
In summary of today’s post, I ask everyone to stop de facto defending the blindingly obvious and self-evident – beyond the fact that it is in fact self-evident.
Conventional wisdom in nutrition is highly absurd, and utterly invalid: yet trounced by the tragic train wreck that it is the current federal government of these States united.
Arguing trivial details while Mariana Trench size gaps in basic premise on these subjects exist is an impressive waste of time, that I strongly advise against, except in clearly defined and purposeful situations when such time is justly allotted to the task, for whatever reason one deems necessary.
-Anthony/Dream
Anthony,
This eloquent argument you have made for yourself to avoid arguing and debating except when you have the time AND it enhances your own life will put you light years ahead of the game at a very young age. Your $ is your time and your time is your life…you are defending it well.
Doug McGuff
Thank you for the kind words Doug.
Scifi geek here:
“you might as well have General Hammond warp you through the middle of a black hole.”
Wat?
Yes, Stargate SG-1 was an awesome show in it’s prime. Not a fan of much else on Sci-Fi, now, or ever.
I agree that conventional wisdom on Nutrition is incomplete in regards to ACTUAL LIFE.
As far as God, God created the Universe, and evolution continues its progress. God is still KING.
Conventional wisdom in nutrition is a complete disconnect from reality. Glad we can agree on something Jeff.
I wish I knew how to create an emoticon for jaw-drop, because this is an incredible post, brimming with eloquent disgust. Perhaps, :- ( ) ?
I experienced the same progression here with nutrition you hinted at here:
-Read, read, read
-Try to convince friends of paleo diet and fail due to a blatant refusal to accept basic evolutionary logic without having reams of resources disproving every single fault with nutritional conventional wisdom (proving one was worthless without the rest to them…)
-Gain yet more knowledge about nutrition through reading–possibly enough to convince my friends. Yet, I decide not to even try anymore, and change the subject whenever it comes up, because it is not worth the countless hours such a daunting task would require.
The lesson I learned:
It is impossible to force someone to think for themselves.
“It is impossible to force someone to think for themselves.”
Absolutely. Doesn’t mean we can’t provoke and persuade though =)
God Dammit (in the rhetoric sense) thankyou for this. I should have realised this a long time ago, in fact I did but blindingly ignored it for hope of encouraging people to actually think (I was going to say think rationally but thats a redundant statement, irational people do not think at all.)
I don’t find anything wrong with encouraging, but I do find something wrong with a feeling of obligation or responsibility to explain self evident decisions, and likewise, I find it completely invalid to put someone on the defensive for said decisions.
its to hard to read your articles as a non us/uk native
Sorry to hear that. Can you explain why exactly? I write stream of thought, but that doesnt mean I can’t tailor a little for a diverse audience, or more likely (as I suspect) explain some of the terms and word choices for articles like this.
Too many words i´ve never heard of and complex sentence structures (or to complex for me^^ ). With a dictionary open and little work it would be possible to fully understand the text.
Well do you mean words, phrases, or both?
I’ve been writing in memory of the founders of my country for a few posts now in an attempt to stimulate thought regarding the state of the country in which I reside – these States united (officially known as the United States).
I do this since the republic for which it stands is, unknown to most, in the process of collapsing. Morally, economically, financially, etc. On every front and in every way it is heading for complete and total soviet-style dissolution and disaster.
40 years ago it was “too late” to start discussing the unspeakable in an attempt to preserve the voluntary union of states which this country technically and foundationally represents.
Now, I just want to help save what’s left so the world can be a better place – for my own sake, the sake of my family and loved ones, and as a by product, everyone else too.
There will be NO ‘collapse’. Mr. Conspiracy Theory Dream. (=
Naivety is not a virtue that appeals to most . . . but apparently it appeals to YOST.
@ Jeff
Tell that to the Romans.
The Romans AGREE with me! (:
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
I just realized what your name stood for haha