Indeed, and besides I think you had halfway understood why I was ironic (by evoking the “final solution”.)
But what parallel do we see there?
I no longer wonder, for example, what could have allowed scientists to write this criminal rag that is the “
Codex Alimentarius”(Which was initiated by the WHO, which delegated, then was separated as UN AIDS, hey ... hey ...) how minds raised to the rank of experts can they compromise to standardize products unhealthy food, which are precisely those which are for a large part the cause of the comorbidities that we talk about so much with covid (and which have been overlooked by the general public, for decades ...) and in presenting it as a “confession of helplessness” while the fact that the conditions for their creation is a crime against humanity, for the part which comes down to the responsibility of said “experts”. For the part that therefore comes down to the responsibility of men. I wanted to explain here in plain language for everyone (what we already understood between us) stealthily emerging from your onomatopoeia ... => (gnarf, gnarf!)
Indeed, we regularly oppose the arguments of “devitalized food”, the argument of “cost” and this to justify consequently all processed and industrial products, which inevitably leads to certain aspects of their denaturing. Even though we don't have to denature to keep:
- there are known means, which have no deleterious effect, those where we let 'nature' do the work (lactofermentation, etc.)
- For example, we heat the oils which are already products which keep very well on their own (to increase the yield whereas it is precisely there that the inventiveness of the industrialists should be expressed (not to harm the And there is no need for big means to get there IF WE WANT, since even the Berbers have succeeded, simply by harvesting the olives at full maturity!
- thus, there is a whole panel of products present in Codex, which are unnecessary and should be easily replaced by equivalents presented in “healthy packaging”.
- we are regularly opposed to the argument of “food security” and that consequently “
we must already be able to feed the planet, and that without the current means and methods, we would not be able to do it po and bla-bla-bla”. But it is of course a lure, in the era of instantaneous communication and computing, of batch marking with RFID chips and other first-in first-out storage strategies: there is the possibility of ultra-circuits. short (which should be the rule) and quality controls throughout the distribution chain, which can be shortened and optimized to a minimum, to avoid any deterioration, but above all to avoid denaturation / devitalization. These systems exist, but they are used in the economic interest of the large distribution (one picks unripe fruits and vegetables) whereas this should go beyond the simple “organoleptic quality” of the food, so that they express to the maximum. what they can bring to the human body (which cannot be done against nature).
- there is a whole range of products present in Codex, which are quite simply toxic. Another example is that EVERYTHING that governs carbohydrate intake needs to be overhauled - it's one of the biggest scams in agribusiness, products that people have orgies on, while we could do without more than 90% - if you count meat products, there is enough to eradicate hunger in the world, right? In their defense, I would say that the great mass of people are not informed! But with the covid, it shakes up the “certainties”.
- there are a lot of things that I forget, that you will want to complete please ... (?)
Yes, the argument of “
cost”, But there is a moment when we reach the limits of the system!
With the covid we have hit the wall at least ten times: ecosystems, our relationship to “
the company we want”VS the living conditions of the precarious (especially cities), food, public health (physical and mental), scientific research, training, prevention, and of course drugs and vaccines (in relation to the gaps in research causes), corruption in politics and science, total economic collapse, etc. (You surely have others, please give them!).
Well, well, don't come and talk to us about the “cost” again: because the “lockdown” how much does it cost?

All this to say dear friend, that the short sightedness of some in this forum, who try to pass others off as noodles, regularly flops, because they don't see these things, because they don't understand the allusions that we make “among ourselves” (basically, who don't 'does not necessarily appear spontaneously) and which are often a source of confusion for them, which all in all makes them relatively amusing.

gnarf, gnarf!