Cargill is another evil corporation.. they control a good portion of the supplement minerals that are sold and fed to animals.. Ive steered away from feeding my animals their salt/minerals licks for years due to not trusting the actual ingredients in their products and instead use Himalayan salt blocks for my cattle and sea salt for our chickens… cargill products are cheaper for a reason.. their garbage. Other companies have weaponized yeast, putting it in grain products.. not sure if cargill does or not as we use a small local grain provider. Unless you grow it yourself or personally know the farmer that does.. you’ll never truly know what is in your food. Food can be your medicine but it also could be your demise.
You can get local licks from the pleistocene era seabed rock salt near Redmond UT. I have had 6gal buckets of chunks sent to Alaska they shrinkwrap them to a pallet and barge them was cheaper than anything else on the market, they say animal grade but we used a coffee grinder and been using it ourselves for years
Yes as always Dean, your work is detailed and precise, with so many links and connections. Those make me say "noooo. Really?" Under my breath, and then keep reading. It is such a sticky web, really amazing that you tease out so many details for us.
Thank you! I’ve been shouting about Cargill since the 70s! Hope you can help bring them to heel. Biggest grain merchant on this globe. Private so untouchable. God Speed.
"Now time grows short. History will not allow the people of Shem additional centuries, or even decades, to come to their senses and realize what is going on. Just as they have been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, the people of Shem now face the determination of the Canaanites to exterminate them utterly and finally. a goal they hope to achieve by the end of the millenium." The Curse of Canaan.... Eustace Mullins 1987
You are the man when it comes to the conspiracy deets, Dean. As you know, I've been researching the origins of the Usurper's scheme, going back to the 'foreign rulers' of ancient Egypt and paralleled in the story of Joseph in the OT. It keeps bugging me that, because the farmers were starving, they exchanged their livestock for bread. That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they eat the products of their livestock, including the livestock themselves. A cow would certainly last longer than bread.
Since we know it's all allegory or, to put it more bluntly, the delusional fantasies of a psychopath, what really happened? Were they somehow forced from an animal husbandry way of living into agriculture? The Hebrews (Habiru) were forbidden from eating bread. They were sheep herders, Shepherds/ Sephardic. The Egyptians feared shepherds, we're told by Jo-Seph.
Another parallel is the story of Jacob and Esau where the latter, the shepherd, trades his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. Not meat, lentils. And we now know the ways in which grain production destroys the soil structure and that grain consumption destroys the guy biome.
Yeah that's right, because herding was somewhere between hunter gatherer & farmer. You owned the livestock but no land. With crops came the Crown's freehold land system, along with the negative effects to land and health... Good one!
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Hunting became something only done by royals, maybe even as far back as ancient Egypt. And the one exception of a 'kitchen' animal would be the pig, that could be kept in a pen and fed on table scraps inedible to humans. No wonder that 'Yahweh' forbids it for the slave class. In modern terms, this would be getting rid of the Haitian pig that enabled self-sufficiency or the latest 'virus' that requires culling all the animals of a certain species.
Ok, but wait..you cued me when you said "slave class"...I had read a posit from an archeologist/anthropologist who was not in that group we might call the establishmentarians, who made observations that when civilizations came of a certain size...capturing peoples into slavery for public works and then domestics, that in order to feed those slaves and certainly not give them the meat and milk upon which warriors had been raised and great labor and investment made (indeed the indicator of wealth and driver of armies) that it was slavery which precipitated agriculture altogether. One does wonder, as even in America when cotton was a money crop in the south, it was peanuts were planted because so little water or tending needed. Ouchie. How easily that became "ChooseymothersChooseJif"
That's a really interesting idea. Davids Graeber and Wengrow talk about slavery and anthropology in The Dawn of Everything. They debunk the 'establishmentarian' trope that civilizations reach a certain size where rule-over-others is inevitable. They look at schismogenesis as the way that microcultures define themselves in 'structures of refusal.'
The Yurok of California were 'anti-agriculture' foragers, who valued frugality and hard work. They acquired wealth and private property but didn't use it to dominate anyone else. Just north of them, the Kqakiutls were fishing foragers but also aristocratic warriors described as so boastful and vainglorious that one anthropologist calls them paranoid schizophrenics.
The latter engaged in frequent raids for the slaves that made up a quarter of their population. Their tribes were only around 100-200 people. And the slaves also ate the fish, which they processed.
Their point is that the means of subsistence doesn't determine 'cultures of capture.' The Kqakiutls saw manual labor as beneath them and so brought in others to do that and care for them. They were pet-slaves who became like family except that they did all the work. The Yurok saw work as valor. To have someone do your work would have taken away your honor.
"The smallholder farms, who were unable to hire free men, also couldn’t compete with the self-sufficiency of plantations. Slave owners who wanted to keep their slaves busy in the off-season grew corn and pork for the local market in addition to their cash crop, and trained their own blacksmiths and craftsmen. Therefore smallholders had to either get big or get out. ...
And from Eric Williams:
"From the standpoint of the grower, the greatest defect of slavery lies in the fact that it quickly exhausts the soil. The labor supply of low social status, docile and cheap, can be maintained in subjection only by systematic degradation and by deliberate efforts to suppress its intelligence. Rotation of crops and scientific farming are therefore alien to slave societies. As Jefferson wrote of Virginia, ‘we can buy an acre of new land cheaper than we can manure an old one.’ The slave planter, in the picturesque nomenclature of the South, is a ‘land-killer.’ ... Expansion is a necessity of slave societies; the slave power requires ever fresh conquests."
Thanks for leading me to that rabbit hole, Akgrrrl!
Yes Yes YES! I've never found such a congenial forum for robust conversation. I'm so glad you appreciate my response. I used to say I'd go to the ends of the earth for a real conversation, and now the ends of the earth come to me. On an average day, I might have a dozen meaningful exchanges by noon. I'm hoping to resuscitate the word argument in the one I just posted, and you're already making it fun: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/why-argue?
"Now time grows short. History will not allow the people of Shem additional centuries, or even decades, to come to their senses and realize what is going on. Just as they have been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, the people of Shem now face the determination of the Canaanites to exterminate them utterly and finally. a goal they hope to achieve by the end of the millenium." The Curse of Canaan.... Eustace Mullins 1987
Did Mullins believe that Shemites had been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, and that the Canaanites are now determined to wipe them out? Or is he quoting from someone else who represents their views? That seems inverted from the actual history and current events.
When you look above the first few tiers of the pyramid, so to speak, they can do exactly as they like. And this has been a lengthy process. From what I understand we are now at the 'business end' of their machinations. Huge thanks, Dean, for your relentless spade work! xx
Cargill is another evil corporation.. they control a good portion of the supplement minerals that are sold and fed to animals.. Ive steered away from feeding my animals their salt/minerals licks for years due to not trusting the actual ingredients in their products and instead use Himalayan salt blocks for my cattle and sea salt for our chickens… cargill products are cheaper for a reason.. their garbage. Other companies have weaponized yeast, putting it in grain products.. not sure if cargill does or not as we use a small local grain provider. Unless you grow it yourself or personally know the farmer that does.. you’ll never truly know what is in your food. Food can be your medicine but it also could be your demise.
You can get local licks from the pleistocene era seabed rock salt near Redmond UT. I have had 6gal buckets of chunks sent to Alaska they shrinkwrap them to a pallet and barge them was cheaper than anything else on the market, they say animal grade but we used a coffee grinder and been using it ourselves for years
Well said!
Yes as always Dean, your work is detailed and precise, with so many links and connections. Those make me say "noooo. Really?" Under my breath, and then keep reading. It is such a sticky web, really amazing that you tease out so many details for us.
Thankyou.
Thanks!
I wrote about Cargill in these posts -
2/21 - https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/profits-before-people
12/24 - https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/trump-throws-maha-under-the-bus
2/21 - https://secularheretic.substack.com/p/reagan-lennon-economic-slavery-and
Thank you! I’ve been shouting about Cargill since the 70s! Hope you can help bring them to heel. Biggest grain merchant on this globe. Private so untouchable. God Speed.
Me too Cory!
"Now time grows short. History will not allow the people of Shem additional centuries, or even decades, to come to their senses and realize what is going on. Just as they have been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, the people of Shem now face the determination of the Canaanites to exterminate them utterly and finally. a goal they hope to achieve by the end of the millenium." The Curse of Canaan.... Eustace Mullins 1987
You are the man when it comes to the conspiracy deets, Dean. As you know, I've been researching the origins of the Usurper's scheme, going back to the 'foreign rulers' of ancient Egypt and paralleled in the story of Joseph in the OT. It keeps bugging me that, because the farmers were starving, they exchanged their livestock for bread. That makes no sense. Why wouldn't they eat the products of their livestock, including the livestock themselves. A cow would certainly last longer than bread.
Since we know it's all allegory or, to put it more bluntly, the delusional fantasies of a psychopath, what really happened? Were they somehow forced from an animal husbandry way of living into agriculture? The Hebrews (Habiru) were forbidden from eating bread. They were sheep herders, Shepherds/ Sephardic. The Egyptians feared shepherds, we're told by Jo-Seph.
Another parallel is the story of Jacob and Esau where the latter, the shepherd, trades his birthright for a bowl of lentil stew. Not meat, lentils. And we now know the ways in which grain production destroys the soil structure and that grain consumption destroys the guy biome.
Just some conspiracy thoughts ...
Yeah that's right, because herding was somewhere between hunter gatherer & farmer. You owned the livestock but no land. With crops came the Crown's freehold land system, along with the negative effects to land and health... Good one!
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. Hunting became something only done by royals, maybe even as far back as ancient Egypt. And the one exception of a 'kitchen' animal would be the pig, that could be kept in a pen and fed on table scraps inedible to humans. No wonder that 'Yahweh' forbids it for the slave class. In modern terms, this would be getting rid of the Haitian pig that enabled self-sufficiency or the latest 'virus' that requires culling all the animals of a certain species.
Ok, but wait..you cued me when you said "slave class"...I had read a posit from an archeologist/anthropologist who was not in that group we might call the establishmentarians, who made observations that when civilizations came of a certain size...capturing peoples into slavery for public works and then domestics, that in order to feed those slaves and certainly not give them the meat and milk upon which warriors had been raised and great labor and investment made (indeed the indicator of wealth and driver of armies) that it was slavery which precipitated agriculture altogether. One does wonder, as even in America when cotton was a money crop in the south, it was peanuts were planted because so little water or tending needed. Ouchie. How easily that became "ChooseymothersChooseJif"
HAhaha! "ChooseymothersChooseJif" is hilarious.
That's a really interesting idea. Davids Graeber and Wengrow talk about slavery and anthropology in The Dawn of Everything. They debunk the 'establishmentarian' trope that civilizations reach a certain size where rule-over-others is inevitable. They look at schismogenesis as the way that microcultures define themselves in 'structures of refusal.'
The Yurok of California were 'anti-agriculture' foragers, who valued frugality and hard work. They acquired wealth and private property but didn't use it to dominate anyone else. Just north of them, the Kqakiutls were fishing foragers but also aristocratic warriors described as so boastful and vainglorious that one anthropologist calls them paranoid schizophrenics.
The latter engaged in frequent raids for the slaves that made up a quarter of their population. Their tribes were only around 100-200 people. And the slaves also ate the fish, which they processed.
Their point is that the means of subsistence doesn't determine 'cultures of capture.' The Kqakiutls saw manual labor as beneath them and so brought in others to do that and care for them. They were pet-slaves who became like family except that they did all the work. The Yurok saw work as valor. To have someone do your work would have taken away your honor.
I have a few episodes that talk about the Dawn of Civilization, this is one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy. Thanks for giving me a reason to re-read this chapter. I'd forgotten it.
But maybe more to your point is a quote from my book in Ch.4 Plantation Nation: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/04-plantation-nation
"The smallholder farms, who were unable to hire free men, also couldn’t compete with the self-sufficiency of plantations. Slave owners who wanted to keep their slaves busy in the off-season grew corn and pork for the local market in addition to their cash crop, and trained their own blacksmiths and craftsmen. Therefore smallholders had to either get big or get out. ...
And from Eric Williams:
"From the standpoint of the grower, the greatest defect of slavery lies in the fact that it quickly exhausts the soil. The labor supply of low social status, docile and cheap, can be maintained in subjection only by systematic degradation and by deliberate efforts to suppress its intelligence. Rotation of crops and scientific farming are therefore alien to slave societies. As Jefferson wrote of Virginia, ‘we can buy an acre of new land cheaper than we can manure an old one.’ The slave planter, in the picturesque nomenclature of the South, is a ‘land-killer.’ ... Expansion is a necessity of slave societies; the slave power requires ever fresh conquests."
Thanks for leading me to that rabbit hole, Akgrrrl!
What a full and informative response. Dang it I love this place. I learn so much from so many!
Yes Yes YES! I've never found such a congenial forum for robust conversation. I'm so glad you appreciate my response. I used to say I'd go to the ends of the earth for a real conversation, and now the ends of the earth come to me. On an average day, I might have a dozen meaningful exchanges by noon. I'm hoping to resuscitate the word argument in the one I just posted, and you're already making it fun: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/why-argue?
"Now time grows short. History will not allow the people of Shem additional centuries, or even decades, to come to their senses and realize what is going on. Just as they have been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, the people of Shem now face the determination of the Canaanites to exterminate them utterly and finally. a goal they hope to achieve by the end of the millenium." The Curse of Canaan.... Eustace Mullins 1987
Canaanites indeed! Mullins is a legend...
Did Mullins believe that Shemites had been victims of massacres and genocides for centuries, and that the Canaanites are now determined to wipe them out? Or is he quoting from someone else who represents their views? That seems inverted from the actual history and current events.
Oh Dear, deh deh, dear, dear, dear, what a wild web is weaved - From Earth, land, water and sky!
Creator - Bless and love us, the meek.
Thank you Dean - Blessings ~
When you look above the first few tiers of the pyramid, so to speak, they can do exactly as they like. And this has been a lengthy process. From what I understand we are now at the 'business end' of their machinations. Huge thanks, Dean, for your relentless spade work! xx
Thanks for the restacks Tracy, Viesha, Bill, Jeanne, Suzan, Tereza & Craig!