The Delusional Vegetarian

I was once a vegetarian. As my vegetarianism ideals progressed i became a vegan for over 3 years. With out having a sufficient  understanding of metabolic nutritional science i continued in my quest for healthy living, depleting my body of life sustaining nutrients. i began to sleep more and more and also noticed a loss in my mental sharpness. My performance in school and at work were negatively effected. once i implemented poultry and fish back into my diet i noticed a large boost of daily energy and i was no longer bed ridden once i came home from class or work. Though i am no longer a vegetarian i am a vegetable enthusiast, understanding the importance of a "healthy" diet consisting mainly of vegetation. That's MY story.

Vegetarianism is not all bad. The consumption of vital plants can provide health benefits for humans as evident. For most vegetarianism has become an ideological addiction as that of religion dogma. In this delusional realm, practitioner conveniently negate logical axioms, scientific fact, medical findings only to be replaced with self massicusness, emotionalism, and the acceptance of biases information.

There are many different schools of thinking for vegetarianism but for the sake of clarity we will use 2 classification that embody the all. These two type are "Pragmatic vegetarians" and "ideological vegetarians. A Pragmatic vegetarian is one whose dietary behavior stems from objective health concerns. I've noticed the practical vegetarian operating on principles of rationality rather than emotionalism, logic as opposed to belief. They take an undiscriminating approach to gathering information that promotes healthy lifestyle decisions. An Ideological vegetarian will exaggerate the benefits of vegetarianism, they will lack skepticism, and being blinded by "delusions of grandeur" they will not be able to recognize or even acknowledge the potential risk of extreme vegetarian diets. The Ideological vegetarian predicates their practices with being in accordance  scientific motives while only actualizing skewed arguments. They become labeled bias because their process of acquiring data is selective and only fuels their position of discrediting information of the contrary. This approach may win a debate but it is not to be confused with science.

As there are many different fascist to vegetarian ideology, have a listed a few widely accepted and popular postulates of Darla Erhardt, R.D., M.P.H, with my responses enclosed with parentheses ( )

1) All forms of life are sacred, and all creatures have a right to live out their natural lives.
(In nature there is an evident food chain supporting the dominance of certain species over others. Believing that all life is sacred leads to irresponsible thinking of allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria)

2) It is anatomically clear that God did not design humans to eat meat.
(the historically diverse dietary practices of human contradict the idea that humans are designed to be vegetarians rather than omnivores i.e for centuries the Inuit (Eskimo)  have been mainly raw meat with there vitamin C deriving from the uncooked flesh of animals that synthesize ascorbic acid. If they cooked their meat they would've developed scurvy. Individuals of this Inuit society have been reaching 80 years of age and beyond.

3) Slaughter is repugnant and degrading
(human perception based on ones own exposure)

4) Animal flesh is unhealthful because it contains toxins, virulent bacteria, uric acid, impure fluids, and the wrong kinds of nutrients
(the argument that toxins cause meat to be unfit as food is false and without merit. Plants also contain natural toxicants, some of which are more deadly than those found in animal flesh. Societies that have a carnivorous diet have enjoyed record longevity.

Most Ideological vegetarians start by eliminating supposed unhealthy food from their diet based on what occult societies deem as "bad for you" such as sugar and white flower. As this psychoneurosis progresses the individual become critical of food labels and worried about ingredients indicated by terms s/he does not understand, followed by repudiation. Engulfing oneself in a community of like minded people, reinforces these phobias. Health food store clerks and publication also feed this obsession disorder.

When the parents of children become afflicted with this excessive ideolistic vegetarian perception they start to catastrophize any consumption of animal products. Here in lies the potential massicustic harm relaid to offspring. There are many documented medical reports of children forced to be vegan, falling ill and dieing do to the lack of nutrition in their diet. Some of these parents have subsequently been criminally charged with "failing to provide their children with the necessaries of life". This savage act is illustrated in the case of Sonja and Khachadour Atikian. In this case a new born was breast fed, at 11months breast feeding was stopped and she was fed only fruits, vegetables, and rice. She eventually stopped growing and became more and more tired(slept). Inevitably she died. The parents defense was that they "believed" they were providing the nutrition the child needed to live.

Another example of vegetarian extremism is where the malnutrition of vegetarian diet caused mental and growth retardation of two boys that were being underfed from birth to ages 3 and 5. Their mother had become a particular vegetarian, omitting sugar and dairy products from her diet.

"people wrap themselves in belief, and they do it so tightly that nothing can set them free, not even the truth"

Ether: The Cornel Obama Beef

Is it questioning the degree of Obama's blackness or just a critical look at Obama's attention to black issues. In the acknowledgement that Obama does not wear the title "Our Black President"  nor carry the burden of our communities alone, some blacks have had an unspoken yearning for Obama to be just that. People had perceived Obama as embodying some of the characteristics of black leader from the past. When Obama attended and gave the eulogy of a once Klu Klux Klan leader Robert Byrd, it should have been revealed to us all that he is very much so different than the likes of a Stokely Carmicheal. By not showing the ethno-nationalist ideals of a Assata Shakur who he is NOT, becomes evident. Given the radicality of social change orchestrated by Dr. Martin Luther King, this would not be on Obama's agenda. Subsequent to our communities political disenfranchisement, an adherence to our needs have been displace multiple cantos away from real action. Obama seems to have followed suit with the praxis of an indigenous insincere, diplomacy in matter of "us". 

Today's cyber activist are to consumed with their perceived level of intelligence evident by there uncanny ability to say and write what is always accepted "ok" by everyone. I thought to parallel their efforts with "casting a stone and hiding the hand", but their work doesn't quantify the gravity associated with this metaphor; thus relinquishing the neo-activist of any viable perspective on the matter. To overstand brother West sentiment you have to first understand his context. West comes from an era of activism that stood on a foundation of evident and direct change. A lead by brothers and sisters that possessed a selfless sacrificial presence comparable to the savior we pray to. Having his hopes held high, I feel that West has fallen victim to his own presumption. The presumption that Obama would be an incarnate to the activism of old. I don't believe the assumption was that, "Our Black President" would rectify all the problems in our community, but that he would use his position to flank, by bringing national recognition and awareness to the issues that plague the black community most.

Falling short of  zealousness found in folks like Bobby Seal, Assata Shakur, Hon. Farrakhan could have and will not be place in such a impotent purgatory sustain by self indulgence. Realizing the dichotomy of political and social leadership is essential

Feminist Foolishness

"To be antifeminist is simply to accept that men and women differ and rely on each other to be different, and to view the differences as among the things constituting human life that should be reflected where appropriate in social attitudes and institutions"  -Jim Kalb

The current semi-reinovated feminist movement is claiming the minds of many of today's young black women. Bombarding their thoughts with notions of radical Independence and anti-feminism, while over looking the importance of family structure and stunting the growth of their nurturing soul. These zealously accepted feminist principles have caused drastic societal regression imputing moral turpitude in the mind of our youth. The neo-feminist movement has convoluted the interpretation of masculinity and femininity.

Its evident that today's feminist movement, perpetuating woman indigence, has become an albatross to the black family structure, obscuring the concept of a  reciprocating relationship. Women have become more intrigued by academic accolade and professional upheaval rather than promoting the nurturalism of the maternal instincts and black family structure. Any well read feminist should recognize the name Alice Walker and should also be privy to the writings of her daughter Rebecca Walker. Her opposing perspective Rebecca Walker wrote; "I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They've missed the opportunity and they're bereft." Those woman submerged in feminist ideology have made themselves a pariah in societal normalcy's. Stable and functional families are necessary for a tolerable way of life, and they will not exist unless men and women each have something specific to offer that the other is entitled to rely on.

The  Neo-Femenist  movement has also taken a paramount position over religious morality claiming that the termination of life should be fully autonomomist with governance solely with the birthing woman. This disregards the Christian position on abortion, going against the claim that abortion is a sin and is the killing of a soul.

Not only weakening he family structure, feminism has had a devastating effect on our youth. confusing them with imbalance and hostility, depriving them of a stable family life. The feminist seem to want to be nurturance and autonomy in a relationship. This goes against good sense because in a patriarchal family the mother is the nurturere and the father is the symbol of authority. The roles are reinforced by the inability of the father to be the lead nurturer thus exemplifying a patriarchal family structure. The psychosis of feminist extremist has caused a  misunderstanding of the opposition imputing them with tyrannical intentions. There is nothing noxious about accepting the fact that men and woman are not the same and have different strengths, but rely on each others strength to constituting human life.  At the end of the day feminism will fail because it radically reputes the stability and productiveness ordered/structured of private life. By disordering male/female roles and childrearing. It destroys the basic human connections it putting long-term social survival in question.