u/Only-Confidence2386

I don't know what it is but I just feel good nearly every time I consume it. In a different way than from pasteurized.

Unlike others in the space I don't believe pasteurized milk is some sort of pure poison though, and I am able to tolerate it and will gladly consume it if I can't get access to raw milk. I love all sorts of dairy.

But something about raw milk especially just feels uniquely satiating and easy to digest. I could even gladly replace entire meals with it honestly.

Kitties lower cortisol.

Low cortisol = good.

Low cortisol = high T.

Cat is independent, one cannot command cat like dog.

According to Ray Peat, those who unquestionably follow are more brainwashed and serotonergic.

Cat = dopaminergic

Owning feline maybe reflection of owners free will too.

Feline constantly seek out warm, sunny spots or cozy laps.

Feline have high body temperature (38°C) and fast robust metabolism.

Feline sleep a large portion of day and conserve energy instead of running on chronic stress or adrenaline.

Feline photosynthesizes. Really like sun.

Kitties = Peaty.

Even when I had literal confirmation bias against this meaning I was looking for anything that would disprove it I just couldn't deny it after a certain point: most vegans do not look healthy. A majority of them look malnourished.

In their own sub they even complain about how they wish they didn't feel they had the obligation to be fit and healthy as a vegan, that they feel they have an obligation to be but wish there wasn't because they hate working out but don't want people to get a bad image of veganism, lots of people with EDs that wish omnivores wouldn't relate it to their veganism even though it clearly is related.

They'll whine about how they wish people just accepted that vegans come in all shapes and sizes and that vegans didn't feel the obligation to constantly prove themselves. Except they're the ones always making outlandish claims about the health benefits, there being no difference in muscle gain, easy protein, and then acting shocked people expect a movement to actually have a significant percentage of examples instead of a majority looking pale, gaunt and like shit then wanting everyone to believe it has absolutely nothing to do with the diet.

A lot of vegans can not or just won't even deny the facts about their visible health markers being horrendeous anymore. The weird pale greyish hue also being very obvious in basically all of the ones who have been on the diet for a significant time.

They will instead just look you dead in the eyes and tell you that your visible appearance and health markers say or indicate absolutely nothing about your actual health. A person can have pristine cholesterol numbers on a blood panel while their endocrine system is collapsing, their skin is translucent and grey, and their muscle tissue is wasting. Your instincts know something is seriously wrong, yet not only is the person on paper classified as "healthy" they would most likely also be classified "healthier" than an omnivore. When you reduce your metric of "health" to a single proxy variable like circulating low-density cholesterol it then starts to finally make sense how a diet that is known to produce gaunt, shorter, lower bone density having, more mentally ill, skinny-fat, pale, sub-optimal, humans can somehow still get championed and pushed as "healthy".

This mainstream insistence that "you can't judge health by looking at someone" or that noticing the gaunt, grey, depleted appearance of a lifelong vegan is an "ad hominem" or '"appeal to nature" is a desperate defense mechanism for a broken dietary paradigm. We didn't for example select and evolve an instinctive visual attraction to clear skin, bright eyes, muscle mass, symmetry, vitality, and more by accident. They are objective markers of good development and health that we most likely parsed and selected for throughout our entire evolutionary history.

Not so coincidentally, many of those health markers including proper mandible growth and development of a non recessed jaw are largely driven by consumption of and access to nutrient dense animal foods in childhood and adolescence.

Through the millions of years of evolutionary data we have (most of this happening subconsciously) we are able to look at someone and instantly recognize health or depletion, our visual cortex reading thousands of subtle biological markers.

You cannot outsmart millions of years of evolutionary engineering with a spreadsheet of epidemiological data and ultraprocessed plant foods. This is the same way as to which the SWAP meat study concluded that vegan mock meats were healthier than real meat, vegans often citing it. The metric of health again being measured with just saturated fat and cholesterol. Ignoring the micronutrient composition, bioavailability, chewing activity, unique enzymes that come with the consumption of real meat, of the very real possibility of complex structural matrices or trace organic molecules that current nutritional science has not yet fully mapped, of the matrix complexity and the way this all interacts with our biology possibly having influenced significant evolutionary adaptations. The long-term health impact of missing unique animal enzymes or structural molecules that even lab grown meat wouldn't be able to replicate let alone ultraprocessed plant "meat" remains unknown.

The point is that health is something much more than reductionistic lipid measurements or isolated blood marker tests. You can not simply ignore and dismiss millions of years of genetic shaping and evolutionary adaptations like the vegans seem to do as just an "appeal to nature fallacy".

Your instincts are relevant. So is the evidence of your eyes. I've noticed that nearly everyone in their veganism journey reaches an inevitable point where you either open your eyes or dismiss and keep ignoring the things you keep seeing and noticing, even when you don't want them to be true. Vegans have succesfully brainwashed not only others but also themselves into ignoring and distrusting their own instincts and biology.

It explains for why quite a lot of ex vegans it took something very drastic like having teeth fall out or the literal verge of death to finally wake up. Even just self-delusion can take people along a few extra years, or self-denial and purposeful ignorance of how sick and chronically weak the diet has made you, trying to delude yourself by saying its related to other things. But the studies show positive health outcomes, and you do it right, and you supplement, and you're WFPB, and the vegan propagandists say you should ignore the fact you look biologically destroyed when looking in the mirror. Anything but putting 1+1 together.

Trust your instincts and eyes. Don't trust vegans, or their propaganda.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - George Orwell

This is something that has been on my mind for a while and actually a significant wake up call that quickly turned me away from veganism, I decided to make a post about it because I recently came across a related thread, a discussion about the consumption of bivalves: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/K9A1ZMoEyr

The overwhelmingly negative and irrational responses and sentiment is characteristic of how most vegans feel about "ostroveganism" (veganism but with the consumption of bivalves like oysters, clams and mussels). Look up nearly any video about it, any thread on reddit, or even the tag on instagram and you'll find most vegans irrationally opposing it with no actual logical arguments while also ostracizing people who engage in such a thing and not counting them amongst themselves.

Peter Singer one of the founding fathers of their 'animal liberation' philosophy who problably pushed millions of people towards veganism and caused a bunch of others to become acquianted with the philosophy himself promoted a diet of veganism + bivalves + free range eggs as the most ethical. Yet this has caused him immense backlash, vitriol and excommunication from the vegan cult: again, all of this based on emotion instead of from an actual rational utilitarian framework. When a movement reaches a point where it excommunicates one of its godfathers because he wants to use scientific nuance and logic rather than blind dogmatic obedience it is proof that the movement is completely detached from reality and a cult.

With veganism we clearly see something that instead of a practical ethical strategy resembles more of a fundamentalist religious belief system. For example, they'll disingenously tell you that the definition of veganism as is the official definition by The Vegan Society includes the core phrase "as far as is possible and practicable", yet they will NEVER actually include people, cultures or tribes who genuinely HAVE to consume a certain amount of animal products to survive despite this definition they peddle.

Bivalves feel zero pain, they do not have brains or a centralised nervous system: they are biologically incapable of experiencing pain or suffering, behaving and resembling plants more than any animal. They are also an environmental net positive requiring zero feed, zero land and zero fresh water filtering up to 50 gallons of water per day, removing excess nitrogen and sequestering carbon. They are also nutritional monsters, and the regular inclusion of them in the diets of not just vegans but also omnivores would significantly improve health outcomes. It would even ultimately be beneficial for their movement because it would most likely also slightly improve the already abdominable retention rates they have.

These are all objective facts, yet vegans will still spew intense hate towards ostrovegans and even vegetarians compared to even a standard omnivore, something a significant amount of people at r/vegetarian will also confirm. Sociologists call this the narcissism of small differences.

Something like the consumption of bivalves is a massive threat to them because it is by all accounts and according to every metric they falsely claim to hold rationally and ecologically consistent, forcing them to confront the fact their rules are arbitrary and based on taxonomy (the "animal kingdom" label) and blind emotion rather than actual sentience, harm or science. If scientists classified oysters as a fungi tomorrow, would they have the same issue with it?

Veganism resembles a cult and social identity that is more about purity signalling than actual objective facts. It is not about ethics but about dogma. People who have asked on vegan subs about if it's okay for them to eat eggs from their family or friends pet chickens have gotten responses that made it seem they may as well have asked if they could skin a cow alive. Name calling and empty irrational emotional drivel are the basis of most of those responses.

Veganism simply allows no nuance, just like any other cult. Another example is honey. Agave is vegan but acquired through slavery. Honey is not vegan but objectively supports bee populations and is a net positive for the environment and the bees. But honey extraction requires controlling and manipulating an animals behaviours then taking the product against their will which from a vegan perspective is slavery. Its the same with synthetic materials that are often toxic plastic byproducts of the oil industry that kill everything they touch compared to for example wool.

It is a fact that a lot of the environmentally and ethically best options available are NOT vegan but vegans will completely deny this fact in favour of maintaining the purity of their cult.

The fact that it tries to recruit as many people as possible with very dishonest and contradictory initial statements that they themselves know are false.

They'll tell you that mock and fake meats are healthier than real meat so it technically wouldn't even be an issue to just replace the meat in your diet with those, but will then tell people they did the diet wrong when they become unhealthy and get nutrient deficiencies from such a diet eventually.

They'll tell you rice and beans are the cheapest foods available and act like such diet won't leave you with severe micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies, then proceeding to again ostracise the people who quit such a diet telling them they did it wrong, and that they actually needed a vastly more extensive AND expensive amount of food items and supplements and that if they truely cared about veganism they would have also spent significant amounts of money to get custom tailor made advice and diet plans from some plant based nutritionist or dietician or doctor that they should have put great effort into finding.

They'll tell you that its so easy to go vegan, it's not even hard, I don't know why you haven't yet, but then when you have to quit or become malnourished you get the opposite talk about how its supposed to be difficult and you're supposed to put a lot of effort into it and if you don't you're a selfish animal abuser and animal rapist.

Its a ridiculous trap and also a key characteristic of how actual cults tend to recruit people initially.