to Matthiew

Hello everyone.

Let me introduce myself, I am Mehdi Saada, 27 years old, with a bachelor's degree in biology and another one in history. I have been eating raw for 7-8 years, and work along the Culture-Nature University, featuring researchs inspired by instinctotherapy (raw food, instinctive, unmixed and directed by smell and taste) and metapsychoanalysis, a fundamental overhaul of psychology, taking into account the influence of denatured molecules in the regulation of the nervous system, the notion of instinctive program of Konrad Lorrentz, and the extrasensory function of love as described by Plato and present in many ancient civilizations.

My particular vocation lies more in anthropology, biology in general and genetics especially. The implications of Mr Burger's (authors of these theories inspiring me) discoveries, in all areas of the humanities, are profound, often fascinating, at times terrible and unbearable. It always takes an iron will and great honesty to welcome change. After all, nature does not care about our apriorisms and fixations: be them sexual, diet-related or ideological... I will therefore speak mostly about what concerns me foremost, a revised and corrected version (with the required methodological doubt) of evolution theory, in particular as it relates to our – not so singular, I’ll come back to it - human species, including the direct effect of culinary molecular pollution and indirect effect ,through disruption of physiological mechanisms and instinctive behaviors linked to reproduction. Other sources and authors besides GCB have contributed what I would like to share with you.

It will be about Lamarckism and natural selection, Neanderthals and multiregionalist theory, some very old secrets concerning our life expectancy.

Lamarckism refers to a very controversial set of concepts about the nature of "mutations". According to the general point of view in our society, life is a purely material phenomenon and without "goal" or deep finality, having appeared by chance, and whose hazards depend only on natural or sexual selection, therefore on the possibility of staying alive to leave offspring, and genetic drift, which is the accumulation of so-called "neutral" mutations (most of them) that is to say not influencing - in theory - not enough the chances of reproduce, and therefore beyond the control of predators, mortality or other factors. This is referred to as a neutralist theory (of Kimura), concluding that most of the polymorphism (of the differences) that makes up our diversity is purely random! We will develop each of these points, by showing their theoretical weakness or by citing the works opposing them an experimental contradiction. The opposite view is that these changes observed from one generation to the next are not "meaningless", but on the contrary obey an intrinsic logic of the organism. Thus the principle of natural selection - contact with the environment determining the ecological viability of random mutations that have already appeared previously - without being completely invalid, would be relegated to a secondary role. Lamarckism would like it to be above all the environment, via certain genetic feedback mechanisms specific to each species, the appearance of mutations directly related to an improvement in the survival ("fitness") of the individual and especially of his offspring. Life would therefore be "intelligent" enough - after billions of years anyway - to change its code with a certain degree of "self-understanding". The consequences of this difference in point of view are immeasurable, the findings today giving little cause for doubt.

The Neanderthals issue ("cousins" we supposedly "replaced"), will surprise many. To call these considerations "contested" would be a ridiculous understatement, but I feel morally obliged to speak about it, and to honor the inventor of this theory, whether she appreciates the homage or not ... Heil to you, Marie.

If we are right in any significant measure, cooking might have, for tens of thousands of years, caused an accumulation of deleterious mutations so drastic, it would shake on its fondation everything we think we know about the “human condition”, our origin, history, the lifestyles, societies and cultural norms we deem “natural” to us, and our evolutionary future. More than evolution, "devolution" might fit more ... or as I prefer, "culinary degeneration".

I question the official "Out of Africa" ​​theory of the origin of the human species in favor of a revolutionary multiregionalist theory, much more consistent with scientific data. All these notions, including considerations on life expectancy, are inextricably interconnected. Yet I will still try to treat them independently, referring readers to other videos or documents as needed. GCB will accompany us at times in this journey towards the truth, or what feels at least more like it.

Tribu des Polahi et quelques commentaires historiques

Cette tribu indonésienne est peut-être l'endroit le plus intéressant à observer d'un point de vue génétique. Cette tribu a en fait ses fils et ses mères, ses filles et ses pères, ainsi que ses demi-frères et ses demi-sœurs, qui se marient entre eux et se reproduisent, depuis des générations, depuis si longtemps qu'ils ont oublié. Peut-être 100 ans, probablement plus.

Ils sont bouddhistes, mangent peut-être du riz, plus probablement des légumes et des tubercules locaux. J'aimerais bien le savoir. Ils ressemblent beaucoup à ça (une autre tribu de Polahi) :

Et en plus ? Ils sont apparemment en bonne santé ! Pas de bébés à deux têtes ou de mutants d'aucune sorte. La question de savoir comment ce tabou est apparu n'est pas tout à fait claire, mais c'est un processus psychique, structurel et non accidentel, vu comment il s'est produit indépendamment, Dieu sait combien de fois. J'aurais tendance à penser que cela fait partie intégrante des sociétés patriarcales, les femmes devenant un objet d'échange entre les tribus, un gage de pouvoir, comme dans le cas où avoir les filles les plus fertiles donnerait le plus de travailleurs et de combattants. Mais comme pour tout ce qui est humain, il y a des exceptions, et je n'ai aucun problème à imaginer une société où les hommes sont les plus aptes politiquement, mais où les femmes font ce qu'elles veulent. Meilleur exemple du meilleur des deux mondes : les Spartiates.

Mais, dans un contexte où les chefs seraient stupides et avides de pouvoir (ce qui n'est clairement pas le cas des Spartiates et des Égyptiens), les femmes collées à leur propre sang n'iraient pas dans le sens de leur désir de suprématie ou de leur intention de tirer profit de leur "valeur reproductive" pour des services, des biens, ou même de les garder pour lui-même. De cette manière particulière, l'inceste est un assez bon égalisateur naturel entre les roturiers et la classe supérieure, quand il s'agit du marché sexuel, même si je n'aime pas cette notion.

D'une manière plus "méta", le Marquis de Sade (Divin Marquis !)  disait que la réglementation trouve son origine chez les masses jalouses, la masse des gens faibles utilisant le pouvoir des lois pour supprimer le pouvoir d'une seule Maison, qui accumulerait naturellement sa richesse (en évitant de la dilapider) et ses qualités naturelles et génétiques (la noblesse réelle), augmentant encore plus le fossé.

Symboliquement, il n'avait pas tord, je suppose que cela se produit spontanément lorsque les masses ont déjà perdu le sens du sacré et du saint, sinon tout le monde ferait la même chose, et le pouvoir ou la richesse s'égaliseraient rapidement. La sélection naturelle favoriserait automatiquement et aggrandirait les lignées de qualité.

Bien qu'elle soit assez "méta", cette idée s'accorde bien avec les lois de l'Église qui ont commencé à s'appliquer au 8ème et 9ème siècle (si ma mémoire est bonne), alors que jusque là l'endogamie dans le clan était le moyen (documenté) de renforcer le pouvoir local d'une Maison et éviter la perte des richesses. Principalement via les mariages entre cousins. Alors que l'exogamie formait des alliances et étendait cette influence, tout en l'affaiblissant également. Ce qui signifie qu'il existait bien sûr un appel social vers l'exogamie (la chasse aux épouses) avant même le christianisme à différents degrés, chez les Romains par exemple.

Mais je suis presque sûr que plus on va loin plus les liens familiaux sont étroits, car l'intérêt d'étendre son cercle social serait moins important, dans un contexte social et civilisationnel beaucoup moins "compliqué", où le pouvoir serait donné aux meilleurs et pas nécessairement aux plus riches ou à ceux qui ont le plus de "relations" comme aujourd'hui.

Le sang frais ne serait probablement nécessaire qu'une fois toutes les quelques générations, bien qu'une fois que votre "groupe" serait suffisamment grand, vous auriez de toute façon l'embarras du choix.

 

Bien sûr, les membres de la famille royale continuent à le faire en dépit des règlements, par le biais de mariages récurrents entre cousins plus étranges les uns que les autres, ce qui conduit à certaines aberrations auxquelles tout le monde pense lorsqu'on entend "inceste". Mais alors, ce n'était que pour le "pouvoir politique" et ne sélectionnait pas du tout les produits de ces unions (forcées !).

Alors que dans le peuple, la plupart des cas de consanguinité seraient gardés secrets, peut-être pas tant par culpabilité, que par un accord commun que de telles choses sont plus belles et saines, quand elles ne sont pas souillées par la condamnation populaire ou religieuse. Mais je suppose que c'est une question de point de vue.

Et il y a, bien sûr, la raison la plus importante pour laquelle tous les tabous apparaissent en premier lieu : un peuple qui est tombé en disgrâce (manquant de sensibilité pour voir la grandeur et la sainteté là où elles se trouvent), en fin de compte, ne peut pas tolérer ceux qui parviennent encore à garder ne serait-ce qu'un éclat de lumière, car cela éclairerait leurs propres échecs en tant qu'êtres humains, leur propre tristesse et leur disgrâce. Toutes les autres explications, ne sont que des effets secondaires de cette attitude fondamentalement, ou pourrie, dégénérée.

Si vous devez grandir et avoir un état, quelque chose de "moderne", ou plus ou moins, qu'est-ce qui vous oblige à vendre votre fille ? Qu'est-ce qui vous oblige à utiliser tous les moyens possibles pour accroître votre pouvoir ?

Pourquoi, au lieu de soudoyer avec des femmes les autres potentats du pouvoir pour qu'ils vous soutiennent, ne pouvez-vous pas compter sur votre charisme et vos capacités naturelles ?

Qu'est-ce qui vous oblige à ne pas faire le bien, dans quelque situation que ce soit ?

La méchanceté et la faiblesse. Un roi spartiate n'avait pas besoin de forcer ses sujets à se soumettre à son autorité, ni de se marier à l'extérieur pour consolider son pouvoir. Les hommes spartiates ne liaient pas non plus leurs femmes de peur qu'elles ne les renversent ou autre. Leur virilité ne se souciait pas de tout cela, car elle était solide et authentique, et non pas incertaine et dans le besoin constant de se réaffirmer.

Par conséquent, tous les tabous et tout le mal provenaient de la faiblesse, qui provenait de la cuisine et ensuite, tous les systèmes merdiques ont été construits pour justifier le mal.

About Genetic Entropy, part 1

I got my hand on a book on population genetics, a area more concerned with ecology (which I obviously am concerned with as a subject, but am completely unable to process as a discipline) and very abstract (meaning: arbitrary) in its axioms. But it appears to be the forefront of an ideological battle for Darwinist supremacy, for a few decades already. So I figured out quickly,  I would have to get in touch with it.

The name is, Genetic entropy, by Sanford.

A Christian, though apparently not as staunch and parodical as most other creationists (of any creed).

It states that :

• that the quantity of mutations of all kinds (any change of sequence) from one generation to another is huge

• that most should be in all logic, and are in all actuality neutral to slightly harmful, because of the immeasurably complex nature and layered nature of our genetics, as an information system, complexity we can not yet really fathom... let alone intervene on it through genetic engineering.

• but the actual weight of each individual change is so tiny, that it can not be selected against. nor for, in the statistically unlikely change that it's genuinely beneficial (per se, and not just situationaly).

So according to him and many, many high-grade geneticists, we're all doomed, and more and more so, at that. And no amount of eugenicism or natural selection could remove such an amount of mutations.

Hence the "genetic load" grows more and more, but in everyone more or less equally, so selection can not "see" the bad sheeps among the good ones: if everyone's sick, what is health exactly ? Too much noise.

If Neanderthals were brought back and competed with us, surely they would wipe us out, at least in a natural survival contest.
But since one generation doesn't show much variation inside itself, nor with the very one that came before, there is not much of a contest, and genetic drift ensures global degeneration.

To be kind to him he's mostly right - the fact that Darwinian natural selection hardly ever create innovations, and doesn't matter nearly as much as people think when it comes to maintain overall quality either.

But a bit wrong too, as a quantity of these mutations are not meant to be detrimental nor random. I mean Lamarckian selection, which must pass by a bunch of mechanisms which look like mutations events for the layman, but whose bias might their real nature if looked at without prejudices against certain ideas.

For an example of such highly commendable scientific endeavor, please refer to:
Mechanism of somatic hypermutation: critical analysis of strand biased mutation signatures at A:T and G:C base pairs and Lamarck and Panspermia: On the Efficient Spread of Living Systems Throughout the Cosmos page 3 to 10. The panspermia part is arguably an idiosyncrasy of the authors I do not condone, but is fun to read and wonder about nonetheless.

The figures on rates of mutations shown in the book do not detail for the different races up until now (third of the book ?) but given the Christian overtone, we can be sure it won't pop up further on either.

We are supposed to believe they apply for all people on Earth.
But since the primary source of mutagenic molecules is food, populations necessarily differ from one another. Arguably, populations good looking and healthy on the outside (Northern Europe...) must be better off inside too, whatever "noise" non-genetic influences add. Yet on the other hand, everyone without much regional variation, cook, so the author keeps his point.

All of this is why, among other reasons, that along with clearing the environment (removing mutagenic molecules), accentuated endogamy seems the only way to reveal "silent" mutations hard to select against, by forcing extensive homozygoty. Then some more harsh selection of a kind to give the chills even to the most coldblooded Nazis didn't dream of.

So, since the pace of bad mutation isn't God-given but can be nullified, and that nature has a few aces in her sleeve to correct damages and restore integrity, the future of mankind, all races included (as I wish only evolutive prosperity for Negroes and others cute Mongoloids !), isn't so bleak as to make me believe in the End Times and start praying... which is probably what the author would desire.

Depression, anorexia and back to health

I stopped my slight medication as soon as I had made my mind, and left. But this medication wasn’t for my lungs or chest. I shall say I had been for two weaks, resting in a psychiatric hospital, though by my own volition and I could leave when I wanted, which I did, after being disgusting seeing human beings being stripped away of what made them, them. At that time I had no real prospect of a future, no ambition, no certitude either. And no one to rely on.

After my baccalaureat, I tried a higher literary class, which was foolish to the utmost as I passionately hated anything literary, and still do. But I had my first encounter with ancient Greek, and for that I am glad. My health and mental state getting worse (from finding no real friends, boyfriend or girlfriend), I lost the motivation while my grades weren’t that bad, mid-year. I then tried an English class at the nearest university, since I was very good in English, having I believe, the best grade in this matter. I loved traduction. But I didn’t have more motivation and to be honest I did that to keep the scholarship on social criteria. And to calm my parents, which I still was living with. When thing got even more impossible, with them or between them to be precise, I went on living alone in a university accommodation.

In maybe three months maybe, I couldn’t or wouldn’t leave my room, or the bare minimum. And it got to the point where I could barely physically do it anymore. It was then, that I got back in my parents’ house, then to the hospital. And quickly after I left.

My first reaction, when I saw him at the train station was “Is that it ?”, in the most hurtful way possible, to someone who was already so full of love and gentleness. It felt like a knife stab, I have been said this enough the time passing, to not even attempt to make an excuse.

But to my defense, I remember having been in a really terrible mental state, and it would take a whole month to not be in that state 24/24. I had been said to have “schizoid tendencies”, along being bulimic-anorexique (more on the bulimic side, fortunately). Now a better word is “Asperger”. Though it doesn’t talk much to whoever never felt that way, never knew what it felt like lacking any empathy or ability to connect to people on a fundamental level. Feeling nothing, while craving for love and knowing it, is no better than being dead.

But one month after, I was quite healthy, I had taken on more weight (muscles), and could run again. I don’t remember how much I ate, but it was something to behold, at least compared to previously. Though it was hard on me, I could hardly do anything other eating and sleeping.

For the first time in a year, I had found a purpose, and goals to set upon myself, and loving hands extended to help me stand... though I would spit on these repetitively.

When you'll read this, pardon me, my love, you do have to ressent me, for I hate myself more than I could make you understand it. You own me, however many times I would and probably will again pretend the opposite.

Raw eating and human instincts, Part 1

I better start from the beginnings. 

My world-view changed considerably when at 19, I found a website of a certain someone that had strived for his entire life and paid the hardest price for it, though not losing his will to fight. That person, researched human nature for years, and by setting up specific living conditions and somewhat of a protocol to uncondition others from ingrained modern eating habits, he made It possible to observe behaviors and medical (in lack of lack of another term) realities wholly unknown until then, and still widly rejected, as with all novelties.

These experiences and observations, have the potential to change completely our conceptions of human nature, both body and mind/soul, and our conception of our place in the universe.

I came up on his website, to find a solution to both my lasting and worsening depressive state, and more importantly, my lung problems of unknown etiology which baffled physicians and which wouldn’t even let me enough energy to run, while I always was a very active and a bit of a tearaway, to be honest.

Facing the prospect of taking regular medications, I took a few belongings and went see thse people to at least, live enough by their side to get the hang of this “diet”(or rather new “practical philosophy”) and see my health come back.

I won’t lie: I have already had, an incredible, otherworldly feeling with and toward this man, with which I fell in love more than I ever had. I didn’t plan on coming back. But he did nothing special nor preyed on me, just provided advises and explanations regards to his own writings.
I thought I was bisexual before, though I lacked any practical experience. At least know I was sure. But these labels proved completely useless, to describe the wealth of feelings, longings and overtures that would become my new reality.