Posts Tagged ‘defining government’

raw milk and defining government relationships

April 28, 2012

raw milk and defining government relationships

“Now, I know that for millions of years various organisms have been eating raw fruit with no concern for the extreme threats to their health posed by eating unpasteurized fruits. I think we should ban the criminally dangerous activity of primates eating bananas in particular. We need to properly educate infants about the dangers of eating any banana mush that has not been heated to at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and made in to a pile of  smoldering ashes.” – Louis Pasteur, Jr., 1776

A bottle of green-top (raw, unpasturised) milk...

A bottle of green-top (raw, unpasturised) milk, showing the required health label: "this milk has not been heat-treated and may contain organisms harmful to health". (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Below is my response to this recently published letter of Dr. Aajonus Vanderplanitz, which may no longer be accessible after a few days:

In an individual’s lifetime, one may be blessed with a basic foundation of nutrition. One may be blessed with the physical development and functionality that corresponds to nourishment obtained during both the pre-natal and the later periods of life. Whatever nutrients and physiological development are present now, that is what is present now.

Physiological development does not exclude neuro-physiology and such amazing developments as the neurological capacity to hear sounds (and even read letters) and then to form symbolic sequences in to meaningful language. On this planet, one of the most unusual “technologies” is language. Creatures without language (or with only rudimentary language, such as infants), could not understand this sentence, even if it were translated in to their native language. The vocabulary I have used is already far too advanced for most infants, who would not recognize terms like functionality or neuro-physiology or even “other foreign languages.”

Now, why would I take the time to state all of those obvious facts? I was setting up an analogy.

Imagine now that I am planning to go to speak to an infant that has only rudimentary language development. Further, imagine that the infant is in a state of whatever severe medical diagnosis we might add: autistic, full of various toxins, eating a diet heavy in refined grains (cooked- obviously) and modern fried oils from grain seeds like soy and corn, plus maybe they were a “crack baby” who was born premature, underweight, and undernourished and is only alive because of a bunch of expensive medical interventions. In other words, they are at least “a little slow.”

Newborn child, seconds after birth. The umbili...

Newborn child, seconds after birth. The umbilical cord has not yet been cut. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, imagine that I want to explain to this infant why fresh raw milk from a healthy source is so wonderful (such as breastfeeding) and then explain why governments can be so, um, autistic and why the word organic is actually just a linguistic code such that when different people use that code, they actually might functionally mean “mostly organic, like around 85%.” It’s like if I have a shirt that is 85% red and I refer to the shirt as red, most people will understand that I am talking about the 85% of the shirt that is red even though there is another 15% that is not- maybe the fabric is red but there is some embroidery or graphic design screen-printed over the red, right?

So, we have here an infant that is, for sake of argument, approximately 85% intelligent, according to whatever standards we might use. The infant also has a slight hearing problem, so it properly hears about 85% of the sounds I say and then mistakes the other 15% of the sounds that I make as sounds that I actually did not make. Plus, I have a thick accent and I use a lot of unusual ideas and unusual terminology.

So, now I am ready to tell this infant how raw milk is wonderful and some other things like how mitochondria are not only good bacteria, but the absolute very best. I may even make a lot of references that are far beyond the infant’s current MODELS OF REALITY or even completely contrary to them (contradictory of them), right?
Further, the infant may not be especially interested in the subject at all, right? Then, they are these huge issues regarding the infant’s processing of the actual communication I am offering.
Ok, so that is a metaphor about a jury (or registered voters). If you want to go to trial (or ballot) about an issue such as raw milk, be cognizant of the reality of the jury (voting public) that would be there.

That is also a metaphor about the mainstream media. Some people may have an attraction to widespread fame and the stated appreciation from the CDC, and from CNN, and so on. It is natural enough to want validation and respect and admiration, right?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Photo credit: Nrbelex)

However, there is also the matter of priorities. When I suddenly lost the ability to walk at age 36, it was not a priority to me to get fame or to educate others. Once I spoke with someone who indicated to me some competence relating to the issues at hand (who I think is the lady who helped Aajonus to originally set up the Rawesome Club in Los Angeles), I obtained a pint of raw cream (produced by grass-fed cows) and I consumed it one evening and could walk the next morning- literally an overnight recovery.

That pint cost me about $4.50. Did it “cure” my paralysis and remedy the issue of the poor insulation of nerve signals through my myelin sheaths? Close enough for me!
Did I break any laws to get it? I really did not care and I really do not care still! Have you ever heard of a police officer stopping someone who is speeding and then, when the officer realizes that there is a medical emergency and they are rushing to go to a medical specialist, the officer does not arrest the driver or give them a fine, but escorts them with the siren to help them get there as fast as possible?

To elaborate on my acquiring of the raw cream, I would not want to be charged with a crime of course, but my point is that if it were a violation of any law or regulation, I would have no guilt or shame about it- no argument either. I might maintain my privacy (secrecy) about the details, but not from guilt or shame- only from the modesty of a practical preference to avoid complications involving any court system.

So, my perspective is that the CDC may be one of many operations which REGULATE the health of the US population, “intentionally or otherwise.” Again, in certain ways, the CDC may be rather like a bunch of autistic infants.

Shiny and colored objects usually attract Infa...

Shiny and colored objects usually attract Infant's vision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What I mean by regulate is that the CDC discourages extremes, promotes uniformity. They MIGHT take actions that improve the health (or at least delay the deaths) or various portions of the population. They also “MIGHT” take actions that reduce the health of some of the healthiest portions of the general public. They might “normalize” or make uniform or make regular or regulate, yes.

But so what? We might pause here to review a functional definition of government and consider what priorities we might have available as options of how we relate to governments.

Governments govern. That is what they do.

They all systematically redistribute wealth. They punish certain things (such as by taxation) and they reward certain things (such as with government contracts).

They all use organized violence (like armies and squads of law enforcement officers). Organized violence is how they GOVERN their systematic redistributing of wealth.

blason du governorats

blason du governorats (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That is the nature of their business, right? So, how might I choose to relate to governments?

This gets back to the issue of neuro-LINGUISTIC development, like what do I say about this: what do governments have to do with me recovering the ability to walk? Not much? Only a little?

Let’s say that governments were relatively irrelevant to me getting that pint of raw cream and recovering the ability to walk. Maybe they helped in 402 ways (building roads and so on) and harmed in 372 ways (collecting taxes to build the roads). I’ll leave those computations to people more interested in the computations.

So, it is natural for me to value the respect and admiration of others, right? Well, I can also empathize with the employees of the CDC in that regard- like their valuing of respect and admiration. They do not want to be humiliated or publicly shamed, right? In the case of a racketeering scheme, the beneficiaries of the scheme may prefer to avoid  any publicity that they think might interfere with or even threaten the very existence of their scheme, right?


Health (Photo credit: 401K)

They are just operating a business (called “the government”) and they want to keep the inequitable economic redistribution flowing toward them, right? They do not want any interference with their organized coercion “protection rackets,” right? They may not want competition, right- like they may want to discourage other protection rackets of organized violence, as in by criminalizing any “unauthorized” protection rackets of  organized violence, right?'s not Extortion! HA!'s not Extortion! HA! (Photo credit: Instant Vantage)

So, what if I was not ashamed or guilty in general? What if I was not reactively afraid of governments, but also was respectful of their vast military potency? Would I shame them? Would I crave their validation and respect from the perspective of a whining pesky outraging indignant (undignified) protestor?

Or would my priority be to value maintaining a dynamic of minimal cooperation (or even maximum privacy)? I might not want to “DEFEAT” or “REFORM” the government because I might not want to enter their jurisdiction at all.

What do I mean by “jurisdiction?” Their jurisdiction is the defining of words. That is what courts and statutes do: they create and reform the “legal” definitions of words. They define what is legal and how. Then they use organized violence to enforce their legal definitions.

They are the functional masters in the art of language (and all forms of warfare including psychological warfare). It may be practically valuable for me to understand and respect that, at least as a possible reality and a way for me to relate to their programs.

Government Poster, Mandalay, Burma

Government Poster, Mandalay, Burma (Photo credit: racoles)

Now, if I want to “go to war” with the commercial interests of the USDA and the AMA (etc) over the court-room definitions of words like “organic,” it is relevant for me to know that I am addressing a matter of great financial importance to those commercial interests. Consider, on the other hand, a term like “Kosher” which is an entirely distinct linguistic category from “Organic.”

If breast-feeding was defined as a ritual sacrament (when conducted in private), would courts interfere with it? If consuming the fresh raw milk of humans by infants can be a protected ritual sacrament, then what about the consuming of various others things- could those be a sacrament?

People have sacraments to eat Eucharist wafers and unleavened bread (at passover?). Yesterday, I had some “high fish” (fish that is very high in bacteria and produces a variety of results including one that is similar to drinking fermented fruit juices such as wine). Eating something like that involves a ritual.

Why not openly use terminology (symbolic CODES called words!) that are not within the jurisdiction that courts have defined for themselves? Why argue with them over their use of words? Why not just use other words?
I invite you to RESPECT organizations like the Jesuits and Freemasons and “the branches of their tree,” by which I mean central governments like the US and the EU. If you do not understand the detail of what I just said, I will rephrase like this: how about *respecting* the functional authority (and potential for intense violence) of the UN/US/USA and it’s branches: such as the USDA, the USDC (court system), the DOJ, and the CDC?

Mother and infant

Mother and infant (Photo credit: kibuyu)

“Now, I know that for millions of years various organisms have been eating raw fruit with no concern for the extreme threats to their health posed by eating unpasteurized fruits. I think we should ban the criminally dangerous activity of primates eating bananas in particular. We need to properly educate infants about the dangers of eating any banana mush that has not been heated to at least 1000 degrees Fahrenheit and made in to a pile of  smoldering ashes.” – Louis Pasteur, Jr., 1776

By the way, that was a joke. If you did not know that the first time around, well, now you do.

So, want to change public opinion? Do not go to court – or do not just go there. Go to comedy clubs and make fun of the insanity- but gently. Cultures can shift. In fact, they always are already.

“Note that the calf in the image below is endangering it’s life by consuming fresh raw milk directly from it’s own mother. It is our responsibility to protect calves like these from negligent mothers who do not know the extreme dangers posed by such activities as consuming fresh raw milk, breathing, and smiling.”

Get Raw Milk

Get Raw Milk. (Photo credit: On Bradstreet)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 756 other followers

%d bloggers like this: