Facilitator@WeWant2Live.com

Rawesome, Raw Milk, Truth and More Truth

Written by admin on April 27th, 2012. Posted in Public Articles, Raw Milk, Importance Of, Testimonials

Rawesome, More Truth

Trying to Resolve the Rawesome Problem

Hi, healthy-food lovers,
This should be my last visit to this subject. Some people thought that I went to law enforcement without trying to resolve the Rawesome problem of Palmer and Stewart supplying commercial food to members. What resulted from trying to resolve the matter directly with Stewart and Palmer, I was banned from Rawesome, the food club that I had as much a part in building as James Stewart. I was not the only one banned. The couple who had food tested because their daughter had high levels of contaminants in her body, the same ones as tested high in the foods Palmer provided and Larry Otting, the man that made it possible to purchase the land were banned.

I took it to the members. I sent notice to over 1,500 of the 1900 members; I did not have all of their email addresses. Only 22 members came to view the evidence. Six of them were angry at me because they believed Stewart and Palmer’s lies. Palmer told them and they believed that all 5 of the past employees who had worked for her and testified against her were “disgruntled employees.” Common sense alone would force a reasonable person to ask, how could Palmer have made that many employees disgruntled. If you read the testimony, you will see that they were disgruntled because she was deceiving Rawesome members and farmers’ market shoppers. As long as they continued working for her, they were complicit in the deceit. Those employees could not live with their consciences and continue with Palmer’s deceit. They stated that Palmer continually promised them that she would make everything right soon but never did. Each of them gave her at least 5 months to resolve the issue, cumulatively 2 years.

Discovering If A Food Is Raw Or Not Raw

When Rawesome was started in 1999, all of its members were my patients. As our food club grew, I made sure that our main suppliers were growing food the way that I knew best, that is, bio-eco-organic, which is much better than organic.  About 2005, Stewart began carrying products that were not truly raw and not sanctioned by me. When I told him they were not raw, he stated that I did not know what I was talking about. He said he had called the suppliers and they reassured him they were raw. I had to contact the producing companies in writing one by one and ask specific questions about processing and temperatures. When I presented the information that they were not truly raw to James, he posted a sign that stated the temperatures at which the food had been processed. He did not send a memo to members stating that he was sorry he had misled them for months.

At another time, he had someone press oils from flax, sunflower and sesame seeds. When I discovered that, I contested that those oils could not be commercially pressed raw. The mere pressing of them in commercial steel machines would bring the temperature above 96 degrees F. He stated his machine was small and did not heat above 110 F.  James had a heat-gun and assured me that he had tested the oils himself and they were under 110 F. For me, 96 F. for oils is the point where oils are negatively affected. Because of my constant travel, I was unable to be there on the 2 or 3 days each month that those seeds were “cold-pressed”.

Several months later when I had a respite in travel, I made certain that I was at Rawesome for the seed-pressings, for about 5 hours. ALL of the oils were coming out of the last area of the machine anywhere from 113-168 F. That was way above the 96 F. that I considered truly raw, and way above the 110 F. that James declared he had measured. The problem with James’ heat-tests was that he pointed the heat-gun at the center of the pressing process and not at the end where the heat is the highest.

I knew that in industrial machines, the longer the constant pressing the more the heat rose. So, I remained to watch and test. On James’ small oil-pressing machine, the heat rose up to 182 F. in the flax oil. The machine had to be cooled after so many minutes of pressing to reduce the temperature of flax to about 142 F. We discovered that only the sunflower seeds would press at about 96 F. after the first 4 ounces of pressing. The bottle of the first 4 ounces of sunflower oil was up to 118 F. and was supposed to be labeled at that temperature and sold at a lower price.

Those accounts of food quality demonstrate that James does not have a clue about how to judge or discover whether a food is truly raw and of good quality. I reiterate, James is not a food protector but a food peddler and does not deserve the accolades of quality food provider.

Sharon Palmer’s Role

I only testified to law-enforcement about the Palmer and Stewart food fraud at the farm. All of the other charges stemmed from Palmer’s abuse of the farm for which she was entrusted to take care. Palmer is a tenant of the farm, not the legal owner. She burned down the historical barn and built many structures without permits. She caused about 15  building and safety violations for which Larry Otting was responsible because he is legal owner of the property and responsible for all actions performed on the property.

On many occasions, the District Attorneys office threatened to fine and jail Mr. Otting if the violations were not resolved. To date the fines have exceeding $120,000 and continue to increase by $200 daily. Palmer will not correct the violations and continued to build without permits. She refused to allow Otting on the property to correct the violations. Palmer put Otting between a rock and a hard place with the government. Mr. Otting took the matter to the court many times to resolve violations at great time and expense to himself. including legal fees. Because the tenant laws are so strict in California and Palmer’s many false promises to the court, nothing has been resolved. Otting was forced to plead to some charges and stay out of jail. Palmer created that by her willful violations. She still has not resolved the violations.

Again, she is merely a tenant on the land and not the owner of the farm. The investors are the owners of the farm. The farm is not hers and never was. She acquired money for her activities on the property by defrauding investors. She forged deeds falsifying that the land was in her name so that investors would give her money directly. Then she deposited the moneys in Mr. Otting’s account for the property thereby involving Otting in the security fraud. Mr. Otting decided to plead guilty and not face trial and probable jail time for Palmer’s fraud.

It astounds me that Palmer is able to seduce people into her web of corruption. It appears that she wants everyone to buy the farm for her and that she thinks everybody owes that to her. I believe that attitude is inflated self worth when you consider that she defrauded and poisoned the members with commercial food for over 2 years while charging premium prices. Stewart and Palmer are responsible for all of the charges against them and the farm. I nor Larry Otting are responsible for any of their behavior and legal actions.

I hope that all of the issues regarding Rawesome, Stewart, Palmer, Otting and I are now understood. I have spent so much time on this treachery and would like to move on to better people and healthy experiences.

healthfully and appreciatively,
aajonus

A Response to an Article in the New Yorker Magazine

Prejudice against Raw Milk

Louis Pasteur  – more complete information

The New Yorker magazines RAW DEAL article was so far more favorable to our right to have the foods we want in a major magazine, including raw milk but the details of the article are not so favorable. Everyone continues to argue bacteria.
(http://www.thecompletepatient.com/article/2012/april/25/new-yorker-profile-rawesome-highlights-stresses-raw-milk-producers-spotlight#comment-19638)
Bacteria is not the problem.

I do not understand why the New Yorker author reiterated the fraudulent disease-“statistics” from CDC, health department, university and processed-food employees and investors as if the statistics were based on science and fact, especially since they possess such a superstitious prejudice against raw milk. I gave her research that proved calling bacteria the food problem is an intentional misdirection and a way for government/industry to gain control of our food.

The misinformation starts with the Pasteur info, was stated as if it were case history. The Sorbonne’s Pasteur Institute of the time was hot on the heals of Pasteur’s heat-process that stopped the molding of his friend’s wine grapes, thereby saving his friend’s land that he would have lost if his grapes were not made into wine and sold. The Sorbonne jumped on Pasteur’s coat tails at the time to ride the notoriety as if they had helped Pasteur with his idea. However, they gave credibility to each other, captured the ears and lips of Europe with the publicity that pasteurization arrested the mold in picked grapes. The medical community jumped on the band wagon stating that Pasteur’s process proved that germs caused disease as well as molds, and that they could be stopped.

However, it was not widely publicized that the wine was abominable to the connoisseur, not sold at posh markets and restaurants but sold to the impoverished who normally could not afford wine. The grower nor Pasteur would drink it. The pasteurized wine was of tainted quality mainly because of pasteurization. It was sold cheap, but it sold.

The affluent class that experienced failed wine crops in their past, now had a market for a processed cheap and inferior food in case mold grew in their grapes. They would never suffer a complete loss again. The market was the trusting poor public in Paris that thought they were getting a drink from the rich man’s table. It was sold and marketed as such. There were many reports of illness from consumption of the pasteurized wine, including irrational behavior, increased home and job accidents and violence. Pasteurization alters enzymes, minerals and trace fats that would normally restrict the quickest absorption of radical sugars and alcohol that often cause undesirable personality alterations.

Cases of  ‘no science’ being reported as science

While being interviewed for almost 2 hours for this article, I explained how the CDC and health departments base their statistics about raw-milk borne disease on surveys not science. That should have been obvious when it could have been verified that Organic Pasture’s milk did not cause those children’s illnesses because there was none of that bacteria in the milk. Bacteria in a calf that does not produce milk, and the fact that that bacteria is not airborne, should be enough facts to demonstrate that the illnesses were not caused by the raw milk they consumed but something else.

Also, the girls who were obviously sick and hospitalized in San Diego – whose sicknesses were caused by something other than Organic Pastures’ raw milk – received massive amounts of antibiotics such as Ciprofloxacin that caused kidney disorders exactly like those of HUS in laboratory animals.  Therefore, it was likely the antibiotics in such massive concentrations that caused the kidney damage, not the bacteria for which the suffering girls were being treated, and wrongly blamed on raw milk. The article misleads every reader to believe that raw milk caused and causes illnesses because it falsely presumes that raw milk is innately prone to “bad” bacteria. It seems that even David and Mark believe it.

Utilizing the statement from a health “authority” that pasteurization makes milk safe was a blatant falsehood. The word “claim” did not appear before that statement. In the history of pasteurized milk, there have been over 500,000 cases of scientifically-proved incidences of food-poisoning, literally epidemics, one involving 197,000 people. Raw milk is condemned by accusations – not science but surveys and statistics.

When a doctor or hospital reports bloody vomit or diarrhea, usually it is 2-12 weeks after the incident that a health-department clerk calls the person who suffered and asks what they ate when they got sick. Who remembers all that they ate yesterday much less weeks after an intense illness? If the person states that they drank raw milk, raw milk is automatically determined to be the cause. That is not science but prejudicial survey-spinnable false statistics. CDC and others certainly spin it, creating misleading statistics.

Technically, we should not call vomit and diarrhea sicknesses. We should call them what they are. A person’s body rejects something that is toxic with vomit or diarrhea.  Those is not sicknesses but detoxification of something poisonous. If the tests were done to detect industrial chemicals in the vomit and diarrhea instead of the microbes, we would have a proper answer of their causes.

I have seen literally thousands of very sick individuals recover from disease by drinking raw dairy and eating raw meats. I do not know how “investigative” journalists sleep at night with such poor research. Seems nothing is very thoroughly investigated and the status-quo concepts continue to be regurgitated and accepted as unquestionable truth. A proper investigation would have entailed a study of the children and elderly who have completely recovered from their illness while drinking raw milk. A good comparative study would have entailed children and elderly who stayed trapped in their diseases while not drinking raw milk but taking medical drugs that offer no cure or proper healing.

Benefits of raw milk ignored

Take for example Walker Kerhrer who was an asthmatic boy on medication. At 7 years old, he stopped taking his medical and began consuming raw milk.  At 8 years old in 2001, he testified before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that before he drank raw milk he suffered terrible asthma and that when he did not have his raw milk, he suffered terrible asthma. In 2009, Walker was the top high school tennis champion in the USA. From asthma to tennis champion; will that fact be filed away in the minds of the medical- and university-indoctrinated minds as anecdotal information? How will you file it?

Notice that the the New Yorker article stated that my recovery from blood, bone, lymphatic and stomach cancers were merely my personal claims. She could have easily researched the truth by seeking the records at the hospitals where I was treated. She didn’t ask for proof. I could have shown her and given her photos of my surgical scars to verify but she did not ask and I did not think to offer. I have a letter written by one of my doctors 44 years ago that berated me for discontinuing chemo-treatments with a 1% chance of living miserably for one more month. In the letter, the doctor tried to emotionally manipulate me into continuing a process that caused me to vomit, defecate and urinate all over myself 5-20 times daily. Such doctors are insane. From medical treatments, I was a hairless worm on the floor in excruciating pain 24 hours daily, only able to sleep 6-10 minutes before I would awaken in greater excruciating pain. I suffered other severe side effects from all of the medical treatments.

However, when I began drinking raw milk and raw carrot juice, my symptoms immediately began to diminish little by little. After awhile, I notice that when I drank more raw milk than carrot juice, I experienced less pain. When I drank more carrot juice than raw milk, I suffered more. I was able to achieve a measurable balance. The correlation between foods and health became very apparent to me even though doctors were in complete denial about it. To them, only pharmaceuticals – industrial chemicals – favorably altered health.

ALL health departments and universities are controlled by medically indoctrinated propaganda instituted by the money and power of the pharmaceutical industry. They have only drops of objectivity when it comes to their brainwashed bacteria-phobic thought processes.

Every bodily process occurs by the interaction of numerous species of bacteria, inter-cellularly, extra-cellularly, and bodily fluids, including all of the activities in and of the body. We are 150 bacteria genes to every 1 human gene. We are about 1/2% human and 99.5% bacteria. The concept that bacteria cause diseases is called the germ-theory. It entails the ludicrous notion that a tiny colony of certain terrorist bacteria can willy-nilly overwhelm the the body, even cause the body to attack itself. That is as accurate as a small village of 200 natives with primitive weapons arresting and annihilating all of the people in the United States of America. That sort of phenomenon only happens in fictional movies. It is an absurdity. Why do people believe it? Because our minds are literally turned against natural fact.

The bacteria that are naturally part of the cleansing of such degeneration are propagated within the cells, coming out of hibernation so-to-speak to eat and/or transform the chemically damaged tissue of the cells. In cases wherein the chemical environment causes mutations, bacterial genes are transmogrified and resultantly so are the cells. In laboratories, Petri-dish observers see that the cells are being eaten, dissolved or transmogrified by the cleansing (janitorial) bacteria and say, “See, those cells are causing cellular disruption and dissolution. They cause disease.” The naturally occurring followup-thinking becomes, ” How can we make money off of this? Let’s create millions of weapons of mass destruction that we will call antibiotics, antiseptics and antimicrobials. We’ll make a fortune.”

The role of bacteria

Do we blame the janitors for the waste they clean in our homes and offices? Do we blame the janitors who clean the pollution that mutates our janitors and gives them diseases? Some day soon, I hope that people will awaken and realize that industrial chemicals, including those formed by cooking and processing, cause all diseases. We must stop blaming bacteria or we will never understand our bodies. Bacteria are never the problem.

However, bacterial waste can be highly toxic when bacteria are fed foods containing industrial chemicals.  Take for instance, intestinal bacteria that are supposed to be 90% of digestion. They eat the food we eat. Their waste is our food that we absorb. Their feces, urine and perspiration are our foods. When the bacteria eat foods with gross toxins, they release those toxins as a natural product of the toxic food.

Bacteria are not to blame for our diseases. The chemical farmers and processors are to blame. If people acknowledge those facts, who would they find to buy non-organic and processed food, and medical drugs? Our politicians and business people say the economy is at stake so to hell with health, let’s keep up the economy. Is the economy more important than living in a healthy body? That is a question each of us must answer.

The drugs that cause most disease are vaccines. Every ingredient is toxic in every vaccine. There are not exceptions. Together, the ingredients are a soup of toxins that have no proof of effectiveness for preventing the disease for which they are given. However, there are volumes of science that prove those toxins cause illness and disease in laboratory animals.

The reason that those toxins in vaccines may seem to work in some people is that the body stops the janitorial bacteria from cleaning old organic waste and accumulated toxins. Instead, most bodies focus on the immediate toxins from vaccines. It will take a body many years to handle, neutralize, eliminate or store those toxins from a direct injection of toxic fluids. So the normal diseases that result from toxic living are temporarily subdued but increasing.

The body responds to most drugs the same way, temporary cessation of disease symptoms but increased toxicity that leads to greater disease.  The people who benefit are all of those who invest and work in medically-related fields while decaying the health of people. If everyone were healthy, medical-related businesses and employees would be out of business and work.

Only if you are sick, do they profit. Do you really think they want you healthy? Those who want people to be healthy yet continue to work in the medical fields are in total denial and ignorant of the results of what they really do.

James Stewart, Sharon Palmer and Rawesome – Where things went wrong

I want to return to the article Raw Deal. The author and/or editors failed to investigate the validity of Sharon Palmer’s response that all of the thousands of dollars of commercial food she bought were sold to restaurants, inferring that they were not sold or distributed at farmers’ markets or Rawesome. Did the author contact the restaurants and verify Palmer’s statement? Did the author and fact checkers fail to contact the employees who testified that the commercial food Palmer bought were sold at farmers’ markets and Rawesome. They testified that Palmer sold those commercial foods as being truly organic and/or Grass-fed food.

When I speak of organic, I do not refer to the USDA’s corrupt version of organic that allows hundreds of industrial chemicals to enter the grounds that grow plants and animals for food as long as it does not exceed 15%. Fifteen percent chemicals can and does cause massive harm to animal cells, most often gradually but sometimes immediately. Those are the chemically-laced commercial foods that Palmer peddled as truly organically and/or grass-fed raised-on-her-farm products. Go to: www.UnhealthyFamilyFarms.com  to see much of the facts in this case.

James Stewart was complicit in distributing that commercial toxic food to all Rawesome’s trusting members. I am witness to that for the many times he lied to me for 2 years. James went off track many years ago and let’s hope he gets back on track, at least with his own foods. I will never trust him again to handle my foods. For 2 years, he told me repeatedly that Sharon’s products were completely organic by my standards and completely raised on Sharon’s farm. He stated I was being irrational and ridiculous to question the quality of those foods. Often he screamed at me at Rawesome in front of many members. The investigators that were hired and the Los Angeles City investigators found that Sharon had peddled the commercial foods for at least 2 years to Rawesome members and people at farmer’s markets.

James Stewart and Sharon Palmer robbed, cheated and stole from all Rawesome members. The worst of their actions was that they harmed the health of people who consumed those chemically tainted foods. They harmed the people with the very products that members joined Rawesome to avoid.

I have been criticized and ostracized for reporting Stewart’s and Palmer’s criminal behavior to law enforcement. Stewart and Palmer left me no choice. I approached them about the quality of foods produced at Sharon’s farm numerous times in 2 years but most often they yelled at me. If I hadn’t arranged for the independent investigation and stopped them,  members would still be defrauded into consuming the poison members thought they were avoiding at very high prices FOR 2 YEARS – not some isolated incident.

Furthermore, James Stewart does not have any significant experience in farming. His experience involved acquiring food and food sales. He is not the protector that he purports to be. He simply peddles the food for which others establish quality.

I worked very hard to achieve the best quality of food possible by working with our Amish farmers who supplied Rawesome. I visited the farms in Pennsylvania. They changed their farming habits to accommodate exactly what I found was best because it was common sense farming. However, it is only common sense when you extricate your mind from agricultural-brainwashing produced by the food and chemical industries. Under Right To Choose Healthy Food, I contracted the farmers to grow and deliver our food in the safest manner possible for our times with the most nutrition.

People need to realize that Stewart has harmed our food-movement immeasurably. He did not leave me a choice but to stop him the way I did. If he had truly been about our right-to-food-choices movement, he would not have supplied toxic commercial food and sold it a high prices to people he had contracted with to not supply those industrial foods for 2 YEARS. Additionally, he did not take the brave approach as the farmers Vernon Hershberger and Micheal Schmidt did. Vernon and Michael were ready to go to jail for the well-fare of their food-club members and all of our rights to healthy food. Michael was ready to die for them.

James, however, opted to take actions to save himself, resulting in the closing of our club, depriving us of Rawesome and put all other raw food clubs in the country in jeopardy. For other people’s sake, I hope that James Stewart has changed for the better if ever in the future he supplies food to people who care for their health. I will not trust him to handle my food. How could I trust a supposed friend who knowingly defrauded and poisoned my patients and other Rawesome members, including me, for 2 years with the chemically tainted commercial foods Sharon fraudulently peddled as grown on her tiny “family” farm? If people earn trust, have Stewart and Palmer earned our trust?

In closing, our food safety should not be predicated on the notion of bacteria, species of bacteria or bacterial behavior. The safety and quality of our food should be solely based on absence of industrial chemicals in food that causes diseases, even if those chemicals do their damage ever so slowly for the purpose of growing fast, pretty food with long shelve lives. What is more important?

Let me drive it home:  The bacterial chemistry jargon of the medical/chemical industries is used to terrorize people into believing it has validity. Common sense observation will tell you what is truth. Observe how many creatures on this planet lick their rectums 5-100 times daily without getting diseases. How many lick others’ rectums daily and do not get diseases from it? How many infant creatures suck mother’s milk without teat-dips and washes and do not get diseases from that? How many creatures eat the feces of other animals when they eat another creature?

No, I am not saying that those are desirable activities for humans but they are not innately dangerous. I would never suggest that anyone eat their own feces or any human feces, although, it has proved to save lives.  There is no more toxic animal than human on this planet, except domesticated dogs and cats fed foods that are the worst commercial foods of all. Their feces are contaminated with toxic pathogenic industrial chemicals.
Bacteria is not our problem of disease.
healthfully,
aajonus vonderplanitz, ph.d nutrition

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogplay

Trackback from your site.

Comments (4)

  • Lucas
    April 28, 2012 at 7:00 am |

    Bob, thank you for making this article available, and thank you Aajonus for your integrity, for all that you’ve done and continue to do for our health, and for the tremendous impact it’s having on our world and future – I deeply appreciate it.

  • April 28, 2012 at 7:35 am |

    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 is 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.”

    Now, imagine that I want to explain to this infant why raw milk is so wonderful and 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 completely contrary to the infant’s current MODELS OF REALITY, right?

    First, the infant may not be especially interested in the subject at all, right? Then, they are these huge issues regarding the actual communication.

    Ok, so that is a metaphor about a jury (or registered voters). If you want to go to trial (or ballot)about raw milk, be cognizant of the reality of the jury 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?

    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. I obtained a pint of raw cream (produced by grass-fed cows) and I consumed it one evening and could walk the next morning. It cost me about $4.50.

    Did I break any laws to get it? I really did not care and I really do not care. 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. 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, the CDC may be rather like a bunch of autistic infants.

    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 the healthiest portions of the general public.

    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.

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

    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 ashamed, right? In the case of a racketeering scheme, the beneficiaries of the scheme do not want publicity that would interfere with or even threaten the very existence of their scheme, right?

    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 by criminalizing any “unauthorized” protection rackets of organized violence, right?

    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 outrage?

    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.

    They are the functional masters in the art of language. It may be practically valuable for me to understand and respect that.

    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,” that is a matter of great importance to those commercial interests. Consider a term like “Kosher” which is am entirely distinct linguistic category from “Organic.”

    If breast-feeding was defined as a ritual sacrament (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?

  • Judy
    April 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm |

    Thank you, Aajonus, for speaking passionately and rationally.

  • ionescu
    May 1, 2012 at 7:06 am |

    great! Uplifting and worrisome in the same time Indeed Aajonus s knowledge has by far a greater and positive impact upon people s health than all the mainstream biased and corrupted so called medicine.More people should realize this.

Leave a comment


SSL certificates