Natetoup Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 Hello, My name is Nathan. This is my first post. I am an independent researcher studying geopolitics, sustainability, and nutrition. I have come across how to begin a new economical era, similar to what the refrigerator has done before. First I'd like to mention the United Nations 17 Sustainability Goals you can see here ( https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 ). In my research of sustainable NGO's none of them share this simple solution. By the end of this post you will recognize that the world can be changed simply with one relatively unknown appliance. However governmental policies will not resolve this, that is why I am reaching out here and contacting influential entrepreneurs to begin this new paradigm. What is old will be new again. So let us begin. We are often told to eat more whole grains and legumes in this ever growing pandemic of disease. However that is half the picture. In our evolutionary history, we decided to not eat grains and legumes in their whole form boiled in water. We have soaked, sprouted, dried, then ground these grains and legumes into flour. Instead of smashing the husks and the entirety of the "seed", we began to roll with pressure with the invention of the wheel and axle. Not many people know one can make flour with grains and legumes and even fewer know about this ancient cooking process. The process of grinding and sour leavening grains and legumes has been around for thousands of years. Only one organization shares information on this process, the Weston A. Price Foundation. Sour leavening is simply mixing flour and water and adding an acidic microbiotic culture or waiting for airborne yeasts in the air to ferment the mixture and leaven it to dough. In this process fiber, starches, and protein are enzymatically broken down into something greater. Calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium are now readily absorbed unlike the popular boiling method of cooking grains and legumes. Most importantly the probiotic lactobacillus forms in the fermentation process. This bacteria is absolutely crucial to our intestinal health and consistently multiplies within the mother culture every time flour and water is added. One can make an abundance of flour from various grains, lentils, beans, corn etc all with the simple and convenient grain grinder. With flour one can make pancakes, muffins, pasta, bread, bagels, biscuits, all the foods we love. This is the most versatile, economical, and nutritional food unknown to modern society. Food security can be cheaply and easily secured with the long shelf life of grains and legumes in their whole form. The economical impacts of having a grain grinder in every home simply; reduces grocery bills by half, topples corporate food conglomerates, globally reshapes economics and the agricultural landscape, provides wonderful nutrition of well handled carbohydrates, protein and probiotics in the most economical way possible. Vote with your dollars and be efficient. I hope to share more. Thank you - Nathan Toupin ( INTJ )
AccuTron Posted June 4, 2016 Posted June 4, 2016 I notice the UN goal 13 is to support the largest fraud in history, AGW, and 13.b specifically indoctrinates the young and marginalized, thereby creating an army of believers in something that doesn't exist yet will give them a True Believer motivation. Yay, UN.
Natetoup Posted June 4, 2016 Author Posted June 4, 2016 I notice the UN goal 13 is to support the largest fraud in history, AGW, and 13.b specifically indoctrinates the young and marginalized, thereby creating an army of believers in something that doesn't exist yet will give them a True Believer motivation. Yay, UN. Climate change does exist. Global ecosystem failure does exist. The two are interconnected and far from fiction. I do not wish to educate you on deforestation, coral bleaching, carbon and methane saturation in the ozone. You speak of indoctrination but yet people are becoming more conscious of their decisions, how they spend their money. I am quite disappointed you mentioned nothing of the core message of my post. The only fraud is believing in unfounded conspiracies.
aviet Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 Climate change does exist. Global ecosystem failure does exist. The two are interconnected and far from fiction. I do not wish to educate you on deforestation, coral bleaching, carbon and methane saturation in the ozone. You speak of indoctrination but yet people are becoming more conscious of their decisions, how they spend their money. I am quite disappointed you mentioned nothing of the core message of my post. The only fraud is believing in unfounded conspiracies. There is a difference between climate change and AGW. I find the climate change movement extremely suspicious. The two main reasons are that the entire global establishment is pushing for action on climate change, requesting global governance. I can somewhat understand the desire for global collaboration on curbing pollution or some form of environmental degradation, i.e. if Europe heavily regulates its industries, making it less competitive and the rest of the world does nothing, then Europe is taking a huge hit for a reduced impact. And later all the other countries can benefit from access to the new technology without having to pay for the R&D. There are plenty of environmental issues that obviously exist, but I am highly scpetical of climate change as it is now known. Back in the 70s the same people were telling us we were going int a new ice age. When that did not materialise they went quiet and in the late 80s they came back with the idea of global warming: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” - From this book, published by the globalist group, The Club of Rome. This idea bubbled fervently through the period 2000-2009, until it became apparent that climate models had been skewed to hide a decline in temperatures during that period. At this point the AGW movement faded out, but quickly came back under the guise of climate change. So they were wrong about the new ice age of the 70s onwards and they were wrong about the 'heating up as hot as Venus' from 2000 onwards, now they ask us to believe that any change in any climatic aspect is all our fault. And I remember the barrage of literature that came out of the AGW lobby from 2010, saying how that their models in the period cira 2000-2009 were wrong because they failed to factor in the global dimming affect of all the particles released into the atmosphere by China. Yet it took the exposition of their models to send them back to the real data to figure that out. Why should we believe them? At the time I took the liberty of downloading all the climate data from the MET (UK weather monitoring body). I did this because I was skeptical about AGW. The reason being: when I was young, in the late 80s and 90s, it was really hot. So hot that in the summer I used to have to sleep outside of the bed-sheets with the windows open. Yet during the period from about 2000 it got colder, to the extent that I could sleep in my bed all summer with the windows closed. For that reason I was not surprised that the MET data shows a clear decline in temperate from around 1998/2000 to when I looked at the data in 2010. Now it appears the temperature is going up again, I have noticed all the talk about Chinese pollution driving temperatures down has disappeared and the AGW lobby are now back to saying there was no decline in the first decade of this millennium, and the earth is back on track to become as hot as Venus. This is not to say there are real environmental concerns, but I find AGW hard to believe since the AGW lobby has shifted its position from cooling to warming to cooling to WHATEVER WE SAY! over about 40 years; hoping nobody notices. And as mentioned, I find it hard to support something that is supported by the like of JP Morgan and the rest of the banks, DuPont Chemical, Exxon, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Monstanto, the EU, the UN, the Rockefellers and so on. ---- As for the actual topic of your post, I don't think you are going to get much of a response here as its a specialist topic. For all I know what you are saying is not true. To give any meaningful comment would require extensive research. But assuming everything you say adds up, keep at it for the rest of your life, then you can prove or disprove your assertion. I would argue that it probably won't end world hunger. The average age in some countries in Africa is 15; the average IQ in almost all sub-Saharan African countries falls into the classification of 'mentally retarded'. There is no sign that this will change in the coming century as the population is projected to balloon to 4 billion, with no sign of stopping due to the lack of economic, moral and intellectual development. Westerners have been going to Africa for decades thinking they can help. All they have been able to do is provide some stability to the food supply, supply basic health care and provide a modicum of development in a few cities. This has lead to a rapidly increasing population that is morally and intellectually almost completely unable to support its self, hence the cornucopia of 30+ year brutal dictators, colossal crime and murder rates, horrendous death traps called roads and governments many of which are propped up with foreign aid. If the west pulled its support from Africa it would quickly descend into a Malthusian death spiral of civil wars, ethnic cleansing, famine, disease etc. If there was a world war now between everyone but Africa, Africa would probably be the biggest casualty without being involved. Your focusing on one aspect of countries that struggle with famine, for which I am using Africa as the cosmos. However, as alluded to the problems of Africa are much more complex. Food is something they need to figure out for themselves. If you make people dependent, they will never be able to learn. It's also apparant that there are certain attributes that are required to become more civilised. In the 1800s, Russia became desperate to industrialise, as it was lagging woefully behind its European peers. However, there was a great deal of concern about the structural compromises to their fedual-style society that its upper class were worried about making in order to industralise. They did not want to embrace the cultural liberalisism of The West and its individualism, but rather stay as one rigid Byzantine system, while somehow outpacing Western industrialisation. So they sought to industralise without liberalising and it failed. The Communists tried again to industralise without liberalising and it failed. All they had was a jaunty, inefficient industrial base that required the wrecking and genocide of millions to create. There was practically nothing else in the country. Japan (-1945) did the same and failed. India tried and failed. Laos, Burma, China and so on tried and failed. There are a whole host of facets a society needs to understand and take on before they can develop. Countries in Asia have or are starting to realise this and you have or are seeing their populations level out as they develop morally, culturally, economically and intellectually. Giving Africa yet more help with its food (which it fails with woefully already) will not make any difference. 1
Anuojat Posted June 5, 2016 Posted June 5, 2016 There is a difference between climate change and AGW. I find the climate change movement extremely suspicious. The two main reasons are that the entire global establishment is pushing for action on climate change, requesting global governance. I can somewhat understand the desire for global collaboration on curbing pollution or some form of environmental degradation, i.e. if Europe heavily regulates its industries, making it less competitive and the rest of the world does nothing, then Europe is taking a huge hit for a reduced impact. And later all the other countries can benefit from access to the new technology without having to pay for the R&D. There are plenty of environmental issues that obviously exist, but I am highly scpetical of climate change as it is now known. Back in the 70s the same people were telling us we were going int a new ice age. When that did not materialise they went quiet and in the late 80s they came back with the idea of global warming: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” - From this book, published by the globalist group, The Club of Rome. This idea bubbled fervently through the period 2000-2009, until it became apparent that climate models had been skewed to hide a decline in temperatures during that period. This was no peer rewiew journal and highly flawd since in there was never any claim by scinetific community itself that there would be glolab ice ice. This was purely invented by the media. Infact in the era you cite only 4 papers predicted global cooling againtd 54 that predicted the opposite. No talk of an ice age at all. This myth seems persistent even among members (amogn other myths) of this board for such a long time i am starting to think of lot of people join in from backgrounds with having to fight STATE propaganda all thyere lives to the point that knowledge of genuine science is diluted. (mostly the yee old leftist media) At this point the AGW movement faded out, but quickly came back under the guise of climate change. So they were wrong about the new ice age of the 70s onwards and they were wrong about the 'heating up as hot as Venus' from 2000 onwards, now they ask us to believe that any change in any climatic aspect is all our fault. And I remember the barrage of literature that came out of the AGW lobby from 2010, saying how that their models in the period cira 2000-2009 were wrong because they failed to factor in the global dimming affect of all the particles released into the atmosphere by China. Yet it took the exposition of their models to send them back to the real data to figure that out. Why should we believe them? Both climate change and global warming were used way back in the 1950 by scinetist to descrive differant phenominom related to one another but still differant, whatever the lobby or the media came up with what time is differant from the science. I am starting to think youre referring here to the IPCC perhaps? Which i am btw not referring to myself i pre-emtively note At the time I took the liberty of downloading all the climate data from the MET (UK weather monitoring body). I did this because I was skeptical about AGW. The reason being: when I was young, in the late 80s and 90s, it was really hot. So hot that in the summer I used to have to sleep outside of the bed-sheets with the windows open. Yet during the period from about 2000 it got colder, to the extent that I could sleep in my bed all summer with the windows closed. For that reason I was not surprised that the MET data shows a clear decline in temperate from around 1998/2000 to when I looked at the data in 2010. Now it appears the temperature is going up again, I have noticed all the talk about Chinese pollution driving temperatures down has disappeared and the AGW lobby are now back to saying there was no decline in the first decade of this millennium, and the earth is back on track to become as hot as Venus. Was the MET office data global? And so waht if it was going dow in 1998? Global warming isint without significant dips, its an overall trend towards warming. And whatwhere it got colder in your area or not doesnt mean anything at all for climate or change or for global warmining because even though earth's climate generally warms up there cand an will be both spikes and colder times and areas during this warming. Its not all equal. This is not to say there are real environmental concerns, but I find AGW hard to believe since the AGW lobby has shifted its position from cooling to warming to cooling to WHATEVER WE SAY! over about 40 years; hoping nobody notices. And as mentioned, I find it hard to support something that is supported by the like of JP Morgan and the rest of the banks, DuPont Chemical, Exxon, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Monstanto, the EU, the UN, the Rockefellers and so on. By "lobby" do you mean whom? Because i would agree... between the media and IPCC real and most importantly ACCURATE sciene on this very politized matter gets vague, obfuscated and diluted between those whom actually reasearch this stuff and those who resport it. ---- 1
Natetoup Posted June 5, 2016 Author Posted June 5, 2016 There is a difference between climate change and AGW. I find the climate change movement extremely suspicious. The two main reasons are that the entire global establishment is pushing for action on climate change, requesting global governance. I can somewhat understand the desire for global collaboration on curbing pollution or some form of environmental degradation, i.e. if Europe heavily regulates its industries, making it less competitive and the rest of the world does nothing, then Europe is taking a huge hit for a reduced impact. And later all the other countries can benefit from access to the new technology without having to pay for the R&D. There are plenty of environmental issues that obviously exist, but I am highly scpetical of climate change as it is now known. Back in the 70s the same people were telling us we were going int a new ice age. When that did not materialise they went quiet and in the late 80s they came back with the idea of global warming: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” - From this book, published by the globalist group, The Club of Rome. This idea bubbled fervently through the period 2000-2009, until it became apparent that climate models had been skewed to hide a decline in temperatures during that period. At this point the AGW movement faded out, but quickly came back under the guise of climate change. So they were wrong about the new ice age of the 70s onwards and they were wrong about the 'heating up as hot as Venus' from 2000 onwards, now they ask us to believe that any change in any climatic aspect is all our fault. And I remember the barrage of literature that came out of the AGW lobby from 2010, saying how that their models in the period cira 2000-2009 were wrong because they failed to factor in the global dimming affect of all the particles released into the atmosphere by China. Yet it took the exposition of their models to send them back to the real data to figure that out. Why should we believe them? At the time I took the liberty of downloading all the climate data from the MET (UK weather monitoring body). I did this because I was skeptical about AGW. The reason being: when I was young, in the late 80s and 90s, it was really hot. So hot that in the summer I used to have to sleep outside of the bed-sheets with the windows open. Yet during the period from about 2000 it got colder, to the extent that I could sleep in my bed all summer with the windows closed. For that reason I was not surprised that the MET data shows a clear decline in temperate from around 1998/2000 to when I looked at the data in 2010. Now it appears the temperature is going up again, I have noticed all the talk about Chinese pollution driving temperatures down has disappeared and the AGW lobby are now back to saying there was no decline in the first decade of this millennium, and the earth is back on track to become as hot as Venus. This is not to say there are real environmental concerns, but I find AGW hard to believe since the AGW lobby has shifted its position from cooling to warming to cooling to WHATEVER WE SAY! over about 40 years; hoping nobody notices. And as mentioned, I find it hard to support something that is supported by the like of JP Morgan and the rest of the banks, DuPont Chemical, Exxon, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Monstanto, the EU, the UN, the Rockefellers and so on. ---- As for the actual topic of your post, I don't think you are going to get much of a response here as its a specialist topic. For all I know what you are saying is not true. To give any meaningful comment would require extensive research. But assuming everything you say adds up, keep at it for the rest of your life, then you can prove or disprove your assertion. I would argue that it probably won't end world hunger. The average age in some countries in Africa is 15; the average IQ in almost all sub-Saharan African countries falls into the classification of 'mentally retarded'. There is no sign that this will change in the coming century as the population is projected to balloon to 4 billion, with no sign of stopping due to the lack of economic, moral and intellectual development. Westerners have been going to Africa for decades thinking they can help. All they have been able to do is provide some stability to the food supply, supply basic health care and provide a modicum of development in a few cities. This has lead to a rapidly increasing population that is morally and intellectually almost completely unable to support its self, hence the cornucopia of 30+ year brutal dictators, colossal crime and murder rates, horrendous death traps called roads and governments many of which are propped up with foreign aid. If the west pulled its support from Africa it would quickly descend into a Malthusian death spiral of civil wars, ethnic cleansing, famine, disease etc. If there was a world war now between everyone but Africa, Africa would probably be the biggest casualty without being involved. Your focusing on one aspect of countries that struggle with famine, for which I am using Africa as the cosmos. However, as alluded to the problems of Africa are much more complex. Food is something they need to figure out for themselves. If you make people dependent, they will never be able to learn. It's also apparant that there are certain attributes that are required to become more civilised. In the 1800s, Russia became desperate to industrialise, as it was lagging woefully behind its European peers. However, there was a great deal of concern about the structural compromises to their fedual-style society that its upper class were worried about making in order to industralise. They did not want to embrace the cultural liberalisism of The West and its individualism, but rather stay as one rigid Byzantine system, while somehow outpacing Western industrialisation. So they sought to industralise without liberalising and it failed. The Communists tried again to industralise without liberalising and it failed. All they had was a jaunty, inefficient industrial base that required the wrecking and genocide of millions to create. There was practically nothing else in the country. Japan (-1945) did the same and failed. India tried and failed. Laos, Burma, China and so on tried and failed. There are a whole host of facets a society needs to understand and take on before they can develop. Countries in Asia have or are starting to realise this and you have or are seeing their populations level out as they develop morally, culturally, economically and intellectually. Giving Africa yet more help with its food (which it fails with woefully already) will not make any difference. Quite a lengthy rambling. "Food is something they need to figure out themselves, if you make people dependent they will never learn" You have greatly misinterpreted what I have said. What I have said promotes independence and self sufficiency. Change your Avatar because I know Nikola would want a grain grinder accessible to all. You mention The First Global Revolution but not Limits To Growth? Frankly I am beginning to think these forums are a waste of time. 1
aviet Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 Quite a lengthy rambling. "Food is something they need to figure out themselves, if you make people dependent they will never learn" You have greatly misinterpreted what I have said. What I have said promotes independence and self sufficiency. Change your Avatar because I know Nikola would want a grain grinder accessible to all. You mention The First Global Revolution but not Limits To Growth? Frankly I am beginning to think these forums are a waste of time. I didn't mean to criticise your idea. As mentioned I doubt anyone here is qualified to comment on your statements. If you want to pursue it, do so, and we can find out the realities that way. My comment was a segway into that I don't believe solving the problems of the 3rd world for them is a sustainable solution. It has not been so far. Assuming you are not from the third world, at what point does you trying to solving a food shortage that has been raging throughout recorded history equate to independence and self-sufficiency? They weren't able to fix it themselves in the past, it wasn't fixed during colonialism, it's got worse since they have been killing and displacing white farmers and the only thing post-colonial western support has really been able to do is send their population stratospheric, ensuing the requirement for more and more support. I'm not sure where the population projection from your chart comes from? It looks like the UN low, whereas Africa is very much on track for 4 billion in 2100. Many areas of the world have attained development and stability by copying and in some cases improving what the West has done, it wasn't handed to them on a platter. I think you should stay, but be prepared for interrogation and a even a few barbs here, as you have dished me: "Quite a lengthy rambling." and "Change your Avatar". Not sure what the revolution comment is in reference to.
Matthew Ed Moran Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 The economical impacts of having a grain grinder in every home simply; reduces grocery bills by half, topples corporate food conglomerates, globally reshapes economics and the agricultural landscape, provides wonderful nutrition of well handled carbohydrates, protein and probiotics in the most economical way possible. So it puts a lot of bureaucrats out of a job, a lot of corrupt world leaders out of power, and a lot of corporations out of artificial profits. It sounds like something I might adopt, and others like me who are frugal and responsible might adopt, but which there is currently huge vested interest against on the part of all those who benefit from global redistribution of wealth, under the guise of solving world poverty. I'm guessing you aren't the first person to realize the potential benefits of this technology, so why isn't it being adopted right now?
WorBlux Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 Quite a lengthy rambling. "Food is something they need to figure out themselves, if you make people dependent they will never learn" You have greatly misinterpreted what I have said. What I have said promotes independence and self sufficiency. Change your Avatar because I know Nikola would want a grain grinder accessible to all. You mention The First Global Revolution but not Limits To Growth? Frankly I am beginning to think these forums are a waste of time. The resource line here is kind of crap. Right now the U.S. has more of some sort of resources than in 1900, hardwood forests being a good example. Technology changes what is considered a vital resource. The unlocking of new ways to use and extract energy is the primary driver of what resources are chosen and used. Before 2100 there will be a viable thorium cycle or fusion nuclear reactor. Suddenly new resources are unlocked. Just a a grain grinder and wild yeast is a key to extract additional nutrients from grains and legumes, cheap nuclear will unlock new recycling options, new raw material options, and a economic case to place chemeotrophic microorganisms at the base of out food supply change to supplement grains and legumes and displace a large chunk of meat production. You would have the option to set aside vast wildlife reverses while making room for a large population increase.
Recommended Posts