Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the evil list

I came across a strange book. A 28 day detox diet and exercise book. It
was written by a female journalist, this was the full extent of her
credentials, the sole reason why women should trust her advice. It
explained which foods are full of toxins and make women fat and which
are safe, without ever mentioning what these “toxins” were or why they
might be accumulating in women's bodies in a way that requires them not
to eat tomatoes, peanuts (but any other nut you might have heard of is
OK), red meat, alcohol, cow's milk (any other species is fine apparently
- water vole?) “additives”, mushrooms, bread, lentils, oranges or sugar.
There was no adequate explanation also for why it is recommended to eat
tuna, raspberries, monkfish, spring onions, alfalfa, dill, chillies,
mackerel, seaweed, walnut oil, miso mustard (whatever that is) and
balsamic vinegar.

Why should balsamic vinegar be recommended, isn't it full of these
mysterious unnamed toxins? If you know anything about how it is made it
should be obvious that it contains lots of substances that, in the food
of the urban poor, would be called contaminants and toxins. Why would
cider vinegar be recommended but no mention given of regular (barley ale
derived) vinegar? Is there any science in this stuff at all or is it all
Hocus Pocus?

Foods seem to be listed if they contain “an abundance of vitamins and
minerals” and put on the blacklist if they contain “toxins and
additives”. If toxins are a problem why is there a recommendation that
“smoked fish is fine provided it has been treated naturally.” What does
that mean? Naturally soaked in salt and saltpetre (the nice old
fashioned name for potassium nitrate, an “evil preservative”, E252, and
active ingredient in gunpowder) then hung up in a rat-infested old
smokehouse while carcinogenic wood-smoke is played over it. Apparently
freezing depletes fish of its essential nutrients, I can only guess that
this is the work of freezer goblins, I wonder if Captain Birds Eye knows
about it.

On the recommended foods list are lemons, limes and grapefruit. Oranges
are on the foods to avoid list, along with both sugar and artificial
sweeteners, no explanation is offered for this. Enjoy your unsweetened
lemons girls. The text of the book says lentils are to be avoided, the
photos feature lentils. Spinach is the only green vegetable on the foods
to avoid list, with not one word of explanation as to why. Neither is
there any explanation of what terrible toxins are to be found in bananas
(banned) but not in plantains (recommended).

Further on in the book that says oranges, bananas and red meat are to be
avoided are recipes for chilli con carne and the suggestion that people
should eat fruit, such as oranges or a banana whenever they feel peckish
during the day rather than crisps, despite the fact that it recommends
potatoes and sunflower seeds as good food.

Peanuts and salt are not to be eaten, you are supposed to make a body
scrub out of peanut butter and sea salt instead. The fat spirits can't
diffuse through the skin it seems.

I picture a meeting in a smoke filled office, as a group of female
journalists, Ab Fab types, one says “what about mushrooms?” Patsy pouts,
stubs out her fag and says “Nix the 'shrooms, we need another M for the
evil list. Is there any more Bolly left in that bucket darling?”

Another thing these women's magazine scientists never explain is how the
body knows whether something rubbed onto the skin is supposed to be
absorbed into the skin, diffuse into the bloodstream or wash away
surface impurities. Does it depend which way you rub it in? Apparently
rubbing aromatherapy oils on the skin leads to the substances being
absorbed by the body, which does not happen for ingredients in
cosmetics, or even the very same chemicals when used as perfumes. I
suppose because when she drew the diagram the woman who came up with the
idea put the arrows on one and not on the other. The same goes for hair
products; rubbing a shampoo into the hair removes stuff from the hair,
rubbing a conditioner adds stuff into the hair, it is all down to the
arrows on the diagram they take down in beauty college when they don't
get the right qualifications to study a science subject.

I found another food book, The Food Doctor, written by a man (!) and a
woman who are both "Dip ION"s which I presume means a Diploma from the
Institute of Nutrition. A Diploma is of a lesser category than a degree.
If a Diploma in nutrition makes them Food Doctors my BA must make me a
Consultant Political Artist.
It seems to me that much of this “woman's wisdom” is based on outdated
philosophies of dualism. Food contains good or bad spirits. If you take
sunflower seeds and potatoes from mother nature's larder they are full
of good spirits. Put them into a factory staffed by fat working class
people from your country and equipped with stainless steel vats the good
spirits leave the food and evil science spirits and urban poor spirits
get in to take their place. (You can call these toxins, nobody knows
what it means, you're safe.) In contrast if you take mother nature's
bounty from another part of the world and put it in a “traditional
craftsman's kitchen” (rat infested rural outhouse) staffed by working
class people who don't speak your language (or at least don't have the
same accents as the poor kids who used to pick on you in the street)
then the good spirits in the food are joined with new good spirits,
especially those that reside in the inedible wood of crusted old casks.


The people who first made balsamic vinegar, or wine, or whisky didn't
put it in wooden casks to enhance the flavour, they did it because cheap
easy to sterilize stainless steel tanks weren't available. We can do
better now. We don't have to contaminate our food with tannins from
inedible wood and carcinogenic traces from burning the bloody things as
being the only way to maintain hygiene.

When there is odourless methane gas available by the gigalitre off the
Scottish coast why do the scotch whisky makers insist on contaminating
their malted barley with carcinogenic smoke from burning peat? So their
falling down juice is seen to be inhabited with tradition and rural
craftsmanship spirits. This is even more of a scandal because the peat
is a declining habitat for threatened flora and fauna. Whisky was made
with peat-smoke cured barley and peaty water for the same reason prison
hooch is made from potato peelings: it's all they had and they wanted to
get drunk cheaply. Can't we do any better now?

What the hell is cider vinegar anyway? Nobody made cider vinegar on
purpose, if some yokel's hygiene standards weren't up to scratch he'd
lose a batch of his much needed tipple to the ever-present menace of the
vinegar flies (Class: Insecta Order: Diptera Family: Drosophilidae) and
give the muck to his wife to clean the drains or whatever she wants to
do with the bloody undrinkable stuff. People didn't make cider vinegar
on purpose just as they didn't make stale bread, cold tea, sour cream or
horse manure on purpose.

Why if you appreciate the taste of berries in your wine don't you make
the stuff with a few of those berries you like the taste of? No, berries
don't have the right bullshit tradition spirit, do they? The skill in
winemaking apparently comes in making fermented pure grape juice taste
contaminated with something else that isn't there. Barking mad. The
world is barking mad.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Mr. Wallet is at it again!

nemo wrote:
> Mr. Wallet is at it again!
>
>

Who is supposed to be paying me this time and for what possible reason?

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

"Martin Willett" > wrote in message
...
> nemo wrote:
> > Mr. Wallet is at it again!
> >
> >
>
> Who is supposed to be paying me this time and for what possible reason?
>
Why not come clean and tell us?

nemo wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote in message
> ...
>> nemo wrote:
>>> Mr. Wallet is at it again!
>>>
>>>
>> Who is supposed to be paying me this time and for what possible reason?
>>
> Why not come clean and tell us?
>
>

<snipped other groups>

What is there to say? I have explained exactly what I am doing here to
you before. If you are too stupid or prejudiced to understand that it
isn't my problem.

To reiterate the posts I am making have three motivations:

1 ] To annoy religious charlatan Michael Rippie by rendering his
newsgroup alt.religion.the-last-church useless as a tool for his
propaganda by filling it up with debates he is too stupid and ignorant
to be able to contribute to thereby burying his own pathetic efforts and
ensuring that nobody is ever taken in by him.

"alt.religion.thelastchurch and alt.religion.the-last-church
Ask your ISP to give you access to these two News Groups.
The first is for direct communication with TLC and the
second is for your personal use in any manor [sic] you see fit."

That looks pretty watertight to me.


2 ] To have 100% genuine honest on-topic discussions with interesting
people, saying what I mean, meaning what I say and being open to
persuasion if I come across a better argument. i.e . I enjoy doing this,
what you see is what you get

3 ] Promoting my website and forum by getting people interested in me as
a writer and original thinker and thereby further spreading my ideas out
into the world.

Yes I am doing this for propaganda. Are you not? Yes I am enjoying it.
Are you not?

Just take a look at alt.religion.the-last-church and see for yourself,
what I am saying is true. I have no side to me, I am honest and
transparent almost to the point of absurdity. You see me making posts
about food because that is the subject in the group you monitor. You
don't see me arguing with Republicans, Christians, nudists, feminists,
libertarians and so on because you only look in the one group. If you
want me to crosspost EVERYTHING to alt.food.vegan just me give the word.
No, that would be wrong and it would be annoying to vegans, which is not
my agenda.

How many people do you believe are paid to make posts on newsgroups?

I tell you what if somebody did want to pay me for posting my own
opinions on newsgroups I'd be as happy as a pig in shit and I'd gladly
work 15 hours a day 7 days a week. But it doesn't happen in the real world.

I am glad you think my writing is impressive enough to be the work of a
professional but I assure you your suspicions are purely a product of
your over-active and paranoid imagination. I am good at what I am doing
because I have had lots of practice, and I have had lots of practice
because I enjoy it.

Here is some records of previous newsgroup discussions:

http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews2.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews3.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews4.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews5.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/makingnews6.htm
http://mwillett.org/Matters/aborting-babies.htm

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/

Michael Rippie wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:15:45 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:
>
>> Why not come clean and tell us?
>
> He is paid by the man who owns his site. mwillett.org is not owned
> by Martin Willett.

He pays me too? Wow. That's kind.

You are half right, the site is donated but as to why it was donated I
have no idea. If an editor knows what his proprietor thinks he can be
biased in that direction. I don't ask. It works fine.

--

Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org/