Virtually everything written under this heading, “Communist Heretic,” can be deduced and abstracted from two books by Arnold Ehret: “Mucusless Diet Healing System” and “Rational Fasting.” This is my seventh year of writing about the metabolic process on various Marxist lines. Human biology is the most regulated field of inquiry in all societies. One is immediately thrown into conflict over words and concepts we ritually use to describe our biology and interpret the long history of struggle for subsistence.
III. COMMUNIST HERETIC OR MARXIST HERETIC? Every social formation that can exist is riveted to and gyrates around the specifics of what is eaten. When Marxist correctly assert that society is constituted on the basis of productive forces and production relations and then define production relations as the laws defining the relation of people to property - class, in the process of production (forms of the working class measured on the basis of a historically defined stage of tools, machinery and energy source), this does not mean that one should treat these concepts outside their historically concrete and abstract setting-category. The starting point is what a society puts into its collective mouth as sustenance, and what is discharged from the body, (entropy) rather than the social structures and infrastructure relations - articulations of alienated labor, by which that put into ones mouth takes place. Post-industrial Marxism as a militant wing of communism, must subjected the entire history of the struggle for nutrient to critical examination. Cuba and revolutionaries in America face an immediate need for such an unraveling, but from different locations in the social equation. America is dying from a crisis of obesity and an enormous spontaneous movement away from eating is underway. This spontaneous movement does not have as its impulse the contractions of the consuming ability of the masses or what is generally identified as the result of the crisis of overproduction as the logic of bourgeois production. At the core of this spontaneous movement are women. These women are not against concepts of beauty but rather, the bourgeois concept of beauty. On the other hand Cuban society is not dying, but facing powerful impulses to increase production, consumption, conserve energy and evolve a scientific model for efficiency. Cuba is impacted by the bourgeois/colonial ideology of the industrial epoch. The Cuban Revolution has passed over into the revolution in Cuba. In America the Marxists are stuck in the ritual habit of making “the class struggle” conforms to a pre-existing vision and ideological concepts of “ industrialism,“ - beefy muscular industrial man, fighting on the basis of the trade union form. This is pathetic because the beefy industrial man is degeneracy personified. Even with socialist politics our industrial socialist man and woman faces the historical legacy of “bourgeois right” and “bourgeois need.” Bourgeois right and need as concepts are more complex than simply productive forces and egotistical habits running against the grain of momentary notions of what constitutes collectivity. What we eat must be subjected to the critical eye. Engel's began unraveling what is eaten and its impact on the body of man and the functioning of the brain. His approach is that of genius. _http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm_ (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm) “Labor is the source of all wealth, the political economists asserted. And it really is the source – next to nature, which supplies it with the material that it converts into wealth. But it is even infinitely more than this. It is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labor created man himself. Many hundreds of thousands of years ago, during an epoch, not yet definitely determinable, of that period of the earth’s history known to geologists as the Tertiary period, most likely towards the end of it, a particularly highly-developed race of anthropoid apes lived somewhere in the tropical zone – probably on a great continent that has now sunk to the bottom of the Indian Ocean. ” “Somewhere in the tropical zone,” begs the question why? We know why, but fail to understand the science of “the why” and shall proceed without ceremony. Engels further writes: “In the first place, the body benefited from the law of correlation of growth, as Darwin called it. This law states that the specialized forms of separate parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of other parts that apparently have no connection with them. Thus all animals that have red blood cells without cell nuclei, and in which the head is attached to the first vertebra by means of a double articulation (condyles), also without exception possess lacteal glands for suckling their young. Similarly, cloven hoofs in mammals are regularly associated with the possession of a multiple stomach for rumination. Changes in certain forms involve changes in the form of other parts of the body, although we cannot explain the connection. Perfectly white cats with blue eyes are always, or almost always, deaf. The gradually increasing perfection of the human hand, and the commensurate adaptation of the feet for erect gait, have undoubtedly, by virtue of such correlation, reacted on other parts of the organism. However, this action has not as yet been sufficiently investigated for us to be able to do more here than to state the fact in general terms.” What is called “correlation of growth” is today understood as interactivity. It is positively amazing Engels acknowledging color as a form of logic, unique to itself as an expression of function and/or impediment - obstruction, in organisms. Apples are red and green because they must be as a part of their function. Today we know that the form of protein expresses its function. Blood is red as a function of an inherent quality, although what we call “red blood” today lacks the grape quality and is misunderstood because it is viewed by a flawed eye. Healthy blood possesses a red coloring closer to grape. Health and the quality of seeing and reasoning is historically conditioned by what is eaten. In this regard the historical “Jewish Question,” viewed through a lens of “strict ritual habit” of eating can clarify much in their intellectual tradition and history as important thinkers and make sense of the modern declaration called the “Aaron gene.” I’m jumping a bit but lets consult Engels. Engels continues: > The ape herd was satisfied to browse over the feeding area determined for it by geographical conditions or the resistance of neighboring herds; it undertook migrations and struggles to win new feeding grounds, but it was incap able of extracting from them more than they offered in their natural state, except that it unconsciously fertilized the soil with its own excrement. As soon as all possible feeding grounds were occupied, there could be no further increase in the ape population; the number of animals could at best remain stationary. But all animals waste a great deal of food, and, in addition, destroy in the germ the next generation of the food supply. Unlike the hunter, the wolf does not spare the doe which would provide it with the young the next year; the goats in Greece, that eat away the young bushes before they grow to maturity, have eaten bare all the mountains of the country. This “predatory economy” of animals plays an important part in the gradual transformation of species by forcing them to adapt themselves to other than the usual food, thanks to which their blood acquires a different chemical composition and the whole physical constitution gradually alters, while species that have remained unadapted die out. There is no doubt that this predatory economy contributed powerfully to the transition of our ancestors from ape to man. In a race of apes that far surpassed all others in intelligence and adaptability, this predatory economy must have led to a continual increase in the number of plants used for food and the consumption of more and more edible parts of food plants. In short, food became more and more varied, as did also the substances entering the body with it, substances that were the chemical premises for the transition to man. < “(T) he gradual transformation of species . . . . by forcing them to adapt themselves (crisis) . . . . to other than the usual food, (say what?) . . . . thanks to which their blood acquires a different chemical composition . . . . . and the whole physical constitution gradually alters, . . .” Here Engels grapples with the metabolic process of man and nature. Engels states that a change in diet leads to the slow accumulation of changes resulting in a change (quanitative change leading to qualitative change) in the chemical composition of blood or what I understand today to mean the acquiring - the quantitative increase, in “white blood cells,“ or a change in what we see as the “universal” color of blood as “red.” It seems a stretch to say that the chemical composition of blood can be changed through eating. Food, even wrong food, does not change the chemical composition of blood. Rather, the change in diet adds obstructions, unassimilated matter in the blood, that makes its appearance as whitening of cells. The chemical composition of the blood have not “qualitatively changed” at all, nor can such change take place this way. Engels presents the crux of the issue as following: “But hunting and fishing presuppose the transition from an exclusively vegetable diet to the concomitant use of meat, and this is another important step in the process of transition from ape to man. A meat diet contained in an almost ready state the most essential ingredients required by the organism for its metabolism. By shortening the time required for digestion, it also shortened the other vegetative bodily processes that correspond to those of plant life, and thus gained further time, material and desire for the active manifestation of animal life proper. And the farther man in the making moved from the vegetable kingdom the higher he rose above the animal. Just as becoming accustomed to a vegetable diet side by side with meat converted wild cats and dogs into the servants of man, so also adaptation to a meat diet, side by side with a vegetable diet, greatly contributed towards giving bodily strength and independence to man in the making. The meat diet, however, had its greatest effect on the brain, which now received a far richer flow of the materials necessary for its nourishment and development, and which, therefore, could develop more rapidly and perfectly from generation to generation. With all due respect to the vegetarians man did not come into existence without a meat diet, and if the latter, among all peoples known to us, has led to cannibalism at some time or other (the forefathers of the Berliners, the Weletabians or Wilzians, used to eat their parents as late as the tenth century), that is of no consequence to us today. The meat diet led to two new advances of decisive importance – the harnessing of fire and the domestication of animals. The first still further shortened the digestive process, as it provided the mouth with food already, as it were, half-digested; the second made meat more copious by opening up a new, more regular source of supply in addition to hunting, and moreover provided, in milk and its products, a new article of food at least as valuable as meat in its composition. Thus both these advances were, in themselves, new means for the emancipation of man. It would lead us too far afield to dwell here in detail on their indirect effects notwithstanding the great importance they have had for the development of man and society.” Part of Engels premise is simply incorrect. “But hunting and fishing presuppose the transition from an exclusively vegetable diet to the concomitant use of meat, and this is another important step in the process of transition from ape to man.” Man was never a vegetarian - “ an exclusively vegetable diet.” Man’s diet contained heavy fruit stuff - “ sweet“ or “sugary.” Vegetables lack an important quality that only fruit provides to the metabolic process of the human body. To state this is not advocacy of vegetarianism, which I do not advocate at all, because perfect health is impossible on the basis of vegetables. Fruits and then vegetables, and not all kinds of vegetables, are critical to harmonious bodily functions. It is surely theoretically correct and self evident that man was a mere fruit eater in earlier times gone by and biologically correct that he can be that today. Or has the horse sense of man be utterly destroyed by industrialism and the ignorance of bourgeoisie society and rendered him incapable of simple deductions of elementary logic? Before man becomes a hunter and he did not become a hunter of meat as the center of his diet in virtually every culture on earth, he lived off of fruits supplemented by selected vegetation. The conception of man as evolving into and through the hunter gatherer society is nonsensical. If anything the primitive society was a gatherer-hunter society. With much of the hunting for clothes and defense against breast of prey. The society of gatherers can only make the leap - transition, to the gatherer-hunter society on the basis of crisis, as indicated by Engels. The crisis produces meat eating and hunting for meat as sustenance but our metabolic process and the chemical composition of the blood does not change. This “knowing” lies beneath much of the legacy of the “Jews” in the old era, passed from one generation to the next as a specific ritual of eating. The history problem is compounded because our species history does not contain an overwhelming impulse for meat as the center of life. This “meat-milk” matrix is relatively modern with slender roots in the middle layers of society, the armed institutions and a narrow segment of the ruling classes and caste. There are two general aspects of this crisis of which the spontaneous shifts in the earth geography/environment are the most important. These spontaneous shifts in the environment drives man from one locale to another and under the force of survival excite the impulse creating the need for alienated forms of labor and an impulse to eat anything eatable. Then man depletes the nutrient content of a closed area due to ignorance born of his shifting from one area to the next as he faces a less hospitable environment. Modern common sense agrees that man could not emerge, as modern man, in an ice over environment. The myth histories of every segment of humanity, without exception, testify to man emergence in a “garden.” Man is not a meat eater by nature, which is why he cooks meat. Meat eating species eat their prey as part of the spontaneous ritual act of the kill, while the blood is still warm and devours flesh and bones of the prey, often when it is still alive and this eating extinguishes its life force. Man eats meat under crisis conditions and this crisis condition has driven history. The responses to crisis condition drives and shape the passionate impulse driving history. “A meat diet contained in an almost ready state the most essential ingredients required by the organism for its metabolism,” is simply incorrect for several reasons that any person can prove on the basis of their own body. That this proposition is utterly false does not mean that the “meat diet” did not create a powerful impulse for our form of history. That the meat diet changes man is beyond dispute. However, the meat diet is not “required by the organism for its (self contained) metabolism.” The meat diet does not contain “in an almost ready state the most essential ingredients required by the organism for its metabolism.” The exact opposite is true. Stated another way, the meat diet is not required for the self contained metabolic process of the organism, which spontaneously operated before man ate meat. That is to say, withdrawing from meat, which is not the worse thing one can eat, will not cause the de-evolution of man, but the very opposite: strengthen his physical, mental and emotional index. Meat consumption by definition creates obstructions in the blood. It is equally wrong to state: “By shortening the time required for digestion, it also shortened the other vegetative bodily processes that correspond to those of plant life, and thus gained further time, material and desire for the active manifestation of animal life proper.” Meat eating does not shorten, but lengthen the time required for digestion by creating obstructions to the body process of metabolizing. The comparison or measure of “time for digestion” and “metabolizing” is not with vegetables but fruits. The organic structure of fruits allow them to be assimilated into the cell structure, or rather cleanse and strengthen the spontaneous electrical charge of the cells. Further, “meat (eating) . . . opening up a new, more regular source of supply in addition to hunting, and moreover provided, in milk and its products, a new article of food at least as valuable as meat in its composition” needs to be subjected to reflection based on several thousand years experience. The body can digest but not metabolize meat and milk, which is why both are expelled from the organism. Milk - outside of mother’s breast milk, should be drank with extreme caution and prejudice and when administered to children be broken down into one part milk and two parts water with a droop of fruit juice or pinch of honey, when fruit juice is not available. I absolutely concur with Professor Arnold Ehret proposition that the societal consumption of meat and milk, does not change the composition of blood but rather, causes the appearance in blood of what we call white cells. The problem is a riddle. Because all of us have white cells, we assume this is a spontaneous and natural event, rather than the results of thousands of years of wrong eating. The human organism cannot assimilate one single atom of mineral substance, or a single molecule, which has not been “transmigrated” into a plant or fruit, or has not become organic. White cells are a sign of deformity, although Engels huge power of critical approach correctly isolates the problem. None of this is to say that the moderate use of wrong food is dangerous or unacceptable. However, at this stage of our society thinking, we cannot define moderate, outside of “not eating” or the material act of detoxifying the individual and society as a whole. The issue stands as such: no human being can be healed on the basis of meat, milk, rice and starchy vegetable consumption, in any conceivable combination, while every human being, without exception can be healed on the basis of fruits, herbs - leafy vegetables and clean water. The question is why does nature provides us with the only cure for disease in the form of not eating and withdrawing from wrong eating? Nature is indeed the test of dialectics or the meaning of metabolism. In other words human blood and the bodies enzymes cannot convert dead matter - meat, into organic molecules. It is not possible. Such a biochemical process is performed daily and hourly by plant life. What Engels is trying to describe is the actual process of metabolizing. The most basic laws of human metabolizing is that the body does not expel, burn up or use up a single cell that is in vital condition and cannot assimilate one single molecule that has not been rendered organic before it is put into ones mouth. Digestion properly understood is the breaking down of food stuff, rather than the breaking down of food stuff + “absorption.” The increase in weight is not the meaning of absorption, which as an act of metabolizing means assimilation. Modern science of the bourgeoisie cannot help because modern science, or the study and investigation of the law system governing a process, is predicated upon a set of assumptions that begin with what we eat and how we understand eating. Hence, digestion cannot be distinguished from metabolism or the body’ s spontaneous metabolic process. Consequently, industrial man conceives and builds industrial system and structures based on and as an expression of a fundamental misconception of the metabolic process. Here is the historical ignorance and impulse our bourgeoisie inherited. Is it true that “adaptation to a meat diet, side by side with a vegetable diet, greatly contributed towards giving bodily strength and independence to man in the making.”? Engels is most accurate in the thesis that eating meat, milk, starchy vegetables, potatoes and rice, etc, and then reproducing an infrastructure of material and social relations to sustain this peculiar ritualized society habit, creates “modern man.” It is this modern man and his history that has come under assault, in varying degrees, in the history of communism. It is this “ modern man” we face today. It is not the inanimate structures of industrial society that destroys the earth and upset its metabolic processes or simply the bourgeois mode of production, but bourgeois right and bourgeois need as a historical inheritance of a species suffering from thousands of years of self inflicted blood poisoning, effected on the basis of wrong food stuff. Engel's approach is in need of updating and expansion. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
