Shut Your Mouth and Save Your Life

A Painting of George Catlin

One of George Catlin's paintings of Native Americans

Shut Your Mouth And Save Your Life (1870)

George Catlin was an American Painter who lived around the time of the American Civil War (born 1796, died 1872). I had not heard of him before reading this book, but when I mentioned him to my mother she recognized him as a famous painter. Catlin began his life amongst modern (for that time) Americans but moved out west living amongst the American Indians after the Civil War. By the time he wrote this book, he claims to have more experience with Native Americans than any living person at that time. One of the things which struck him most about the natives was their freedom from the ailments of modern society. He wrote this book to teach modern people how they could become healthier.

George Catlin was a very feeble man during his younger years. He probably considered himself average amongst those living and felt lucky to be alive (not dead). He worked as a lawyer and then at the age of 34 in 1830 began his travels in the Western United States. Living out of doors was a shock for his body. A mouth breather, he often woke up with inflamed and bleeding lungs and his sleep was miserable. He managed to make himself a nose breather and dramatically turned his health around. When he wrote this book he was at the healthiest and strongest of his life and had no aches and pains. The purpose of this book was to convince Americans back home how to make the same changes he did and to inform them that many of the hard parts of life are not necessary.

At the time Catlin wrote, half of all children born in major American and European cities died before the age of 5. Half of those who survived died before the age of 25. Those who lived to adulthood often had deformities (approximately one half percent of the population had the problems of being a hunch back, an idiot, or deaf). I don't know what the rates of these diseases are now, but we place most of our young boys on Ritalin and our special education classes are overflowing. Those who lived to adulthood in those days usually had bad teeth. I think we are far better at treating the symptoms of our illnesses today, but the same underlying problems still exist.

When Catlin met the Indians he was struck by their fine physical features. At the time most whites thought the American Indians were sick and disease ridden, but Catlin says only the Natives living in close contact with Whites were sickly and diseased. He refers to several major plagues which swept across America but stopped when they hit the Native Americans who had not yet started drinking whiskey. The Natives did not loose any children to sickness or childbirth. When Catlin inquired about childhood deaths, Chiefs would relate a couple instances of children drowning or getting bitten by a rattlesnake. That was all. Caitlin does say that the Indians living in close contact with whites were sickly. He is not sure why this is but he seems to attribute it to whiskey consumption.

In the book Catlin explains his theory about why nose breathing is healthier than mouth breathing. The nose is especially designed to filter and warm air before it his the lungs. The mouth is not designed to filter air so the cold dirty air flows directly into the lunges without an safety mechanisms in place. The mouth is supposed to be an aqueous environment, but breathing through the mouth causes it to dry out making the teeth less healthy. Catlin had noticed that animals die quickly if they are forced to breath through their mouths and hypothesized that people do as well. Catlin also marveled at the fine ordering and lack of decay in the Indians teeth. He attributed this to the Indians habit of keeping their mouths closed at all times. The one time an Indian opened his mouth was to speak and that did not happen often.

The last part of the book is devoted to convincing people to take up nasal breathing and teaching to them how to do this. Catlin advocates making the switch through conscious thought. He recommends keeping your mouth closed at all times while awake and thinking about keeping your mouth closed as you fall asleep at night. He motivates people of all ages by reminding them of their friends who have died and urging them to consider the effects it will have on their future health, marriage prospects, and career.

The Vitamin Code by Massoud Arvanaghi and Mike Yorkey

The VITAMIN CODE The Breakthrough Discovery That Will Change The Way You Take Vitamins Forever

The Vitamin Code tells the story behind the Jordan Rubin's Garden of Life raw vitamins. The book is written in three sections giving the reader an understanding of why vitamins are needed, the story behind the development of these vitamins, and an analysis of the vitamins on the market today. Jordan Rubin has been endorsed in the past by the Weston Price Foundation, so I am inclined to believe that he is selling a legitimate product. I do not take nutritional supplements myself: I have other areas of my diet to work on first. However, I learned a lot about nutritional supplementation from this book. In any case, I like Garden of Life's method of trying to sell their product by educating the consumer.

Part I: The learning curve

The medical community has consistently denigrated nutritional supplements but is slowly being forced to change. Today even the Journal of the American Medical Association recommends taking nutritional supplements. The history of vitamins begins in 1747 with James Lind discovering a cure for scurvy and continues with Eijkman discovering a cure for Beriberi in 1886. Both cures involved nutritional supplementation although not using synthetic vitamins. Vitamins were finally officially discovered by Funk in 1912 and synthetic Vitamin C was first produced by Szent-Gyorgyi in 1931.

There are two categories of vitamins: fat soluble and water soluble. Fat soluble vitamins include A, D, E, and K. Excess levels of these vitamins can be stored in fat for future use, and these vitamin levels will be depleted by a low fat diet. The B series of vitamins are the primary water soluble vitamins. The body flushes out excess levels so they cannot be stored and must be replenished regularly.

Part II: Cracking the code

The second part of the book tells the story of Endre Szalay who started the Grow Company which produces the vitamins sold by Garden of Life. Szalay is a Hungarian pharmacist who avoided serving in the Second World War because he is part deaf. His freedom spared, he managed to survive the warfare and rampaging armies which rampaged back and forth across his country during the war. He became a successful pharmacist after the war but was worried about being denounced to the communists, so he escaped to the United States.

Once in the US, Szalay's genius demonstrated itself. He began at the very bottom level of the pharmacy profession and but he rose up the ladder to become the Vice President of three different pharmaceutical companies. Giving up the lucrative positions, he retired and invested his own money to follow his passion and create the Grow Company which grows vitamins inside of living organisms--yeasts. These vitamins contain all the necessary factors for the body to use them because they are constructed by a living organism. The Grow Company does not sell directly to customers it only sells to other companies, so Jordan Rubin approached Szalay to begin making nutritional supplements. The rest is history.

Part III: What the vitamin code means

There are five different levels of vitamins according to the authors of this book. From worst to best they are

1. Isolated Vitamins and Minerals: These are the cheapest and most common form. They often contain lots of sweeteners and the body has a difficult time absorbing them.
   
2. Isolated Vitamins and Minerals with Food Powder: These are the same synthetic vitamins as before but they contain some food powders which make them slightly easier for the body to assimilate.
   
3. Food Concentrates: These are vitamins extracted from healthy foods such as grasses. They were popular during the 1930s but were driven from the market by the cheaper isolated vitamins and minerals.
   
4. Fermented Vitamins and Minerals: To create these vitamins a food concentrate is mixed with a pro-biotic such as friendly yeasts. The fermentation makes the food concentrates easier to absorb.
5. Raw Food Created Vitamins: These vitamins are grown inside of yeast using the Grow Company's process which is described in more detail in the second part of the book. They are kept at low temperature to avoid denaturing from heat.
   

The World of Hair by John Gray

The World of Hair Colour (Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority)

online version

Hair is an indicator of health, a large part of a woman’s identity, and has played a large part in many famous stories (Samson, Rapunzel ...). Knowing the importance of hair is only a small part of the puzzle. It is important to know how hair works, what the signs of healthy hair are, how to care for your hair, and what dangers to avoid.

While researching hair I came across a good resource: an e-book called The World of Hair by Dr. John Gray. This book represents conventional science, so it must be read with a grain of salt. Its intended audience seems to be hair stylists, so it covers both the theory behind hair and how to care for it. I will summarize what I feel are the most important points of this book.

Hair Structure:
The two parts of a hair are the follicle which is below the surface of the skin where hair grows and the shaft which is outside of the skin. New cells are created in the follicle and pushed outwards to become the shaft. Hair pigment is created in the follicle. The shaft is composed of dead cells and lubricated by sebum which is secreted from the follicle. The center of the shaft is called the cortex and gives hair its curl and elasticity. It is made up of keratin and contains the in hairpigments. The outside of the shaft is called the cuticle is composed of between six and ten layers of cells and takes the form of a layer of scales covering the cortex. The cuticle gives hair its shine.

Hair Statistics:
People generally have between 100,000 and 150,000 hairs on their head. The number of hairs generally peaks around the age of 16 years old while the density of hair decreases throughout life. A baby will have around 1,100 hairs/cm2; a 25 year old, 600 hair/cm2, and someone 40 or older 300 hair/cm2. Hair usually grows at the rate of 1cm/month. Consequently shoulder length hair has usually been growing for 3 years and waist length hair for 7 years.

Hair Life Cycle:
Hair has three stages to its lifecycle. Anagen is the first phase in which the hair grows; this stage usually lasts between three and seven years. Catagen is the second phase lasting two to four weeks. During this phase hair stops growing and becomes ready for shedding. Telogen is the third phase; here a new hair starts to grow and the old hair falls out. This final stage lasts three to four months.

Hair Types:
Asian is the first of the hair categories based upon genetics. Asian hair is black and very straight. The straightness is due to the straightness of the keratin bundles. The shaft of the hair is round and thick. Its diameter can be more than 120 microns.

Caucasoid is the second type of hair. It is possessed by Europeans and Indians. It can be wavy or straight and has a wide range of colors. A mix of straight and wavy keratin bundles is found in the hair. The shaft is usually between 57 and 90 microns in diameter and oval in cross section.

The third type of hair is African. African hair is black and very curly. It is flatter in shape and the cuticle has many kinks in it.

In healthy hair the cortex or central part of the hair shaft is undamaged and the cuticle or covering sheath of the shaft is intact. Keeping hair in this state is easier said than done because once hair leaves the scalp it cannot be repaired. Hair needs to maintain its pristine conditions for a long time: 3 years for shoulder length, 5 years for waist length, and 12 years for hair long enough to sit on.

Since not everyone owns a high power microscope to examine their hair for damage, it is important to be able to tell hair’s healthiness through observation with the naked eyeball. Here the useful correlation between health and beauty aids us because we can recognize healthy hair instinctively. This explains why men are attracted to hair even though most men know almost nothing about hair. Properties of healthy and beautiful hair include glossiness, cleanness, amount, and volume.

The glossier hair is the more light it reflects. This is the most obvious property of healthy hair. Dark hair is generally glossier than light hair (this does not mean dark hair is better) because of the contrast between the shine and the natural hair color. Hair’s glossiness depends on the state of the cuticle. If the cuticle is mostly gone or highly damaged, hair will not reflect much light.

Clean hair is free of debris and has a proper level of natural oils. Hair naturally produces oil and should have some; however, it should not be excessively oily. There should not be debris or caked hairspray in the hair. Dirty hair is not as glossy as clean hair.

The amount of hair depends on the diameter of the hair shaft and number of hairs. The diameter of a pony tail can vary by more than 100% based upon the diameter and number of hairs. Both number of hairs and diameter of hair shaft are related to genetics and healthiness of lifestyle. Even though modern science says that both of these are fully genetic, it admits that in the case of starvation or high stress hair is lost and changes color. The amount of hair varies with length as well, but most of the time people do not grow their hair to its limiting length.

Volume is amount of space hair takes up. It is dependent on “thickness” as described in the previous paragraph but not entirely so. Hair properties such as stiffness, curvature, cohesion, and friction play a large role in determining hair’s volume. These cause hair to flow and hold itself in ways that hold more air inside and make it look bigger. While the amount of hair depends on ones long term health (of yourself and your ancestor), volume can be vary from day to day based upon treatment and weather conditions.

Next I will discuss general Dr. Gray's ideas about hair care and not specific techniques. First I will discuss styling and then cleaning. Hair styling is temporarily or permanently altering the shape of hair. Temporarily changing the shape of hair involves setting and changes weak bonds between hair while permanent altering either “perming” or “relaxing” chemically changes the shape of hair. Cleaning hair involves both the method of cleaning hair as well as the materials used.

Setting or temporary styling involves drying hair into place. This needs to be done every time hair is wetted. This is the safest way to style hair and everyone does it without thinking. Having a good haircut can make this easier. Avoid is back combing. This can increase the friction of hair leading to more volume, but it pushes up scales on the cuticle damaging the hair. Be careful about blow drying hair. Everyone agrees that air drying is optimal, but this takes a long time. Heat damages hair, and if there is a lot of water remaining in hair when it is blow dried, the water on the hair can boil seriously damaging the hair. For this reason towel dry and air dry as much as possible before blow drying. Hair can also be temporarily colored; this colors the hair with pigments which will eventually wash out. I would guess that this is not healthy [but more healthy than permanent coloring] because the pigments will also be absorbed into the scalp.

Permanent styling of hair changes the structure of hair through chemical processes. Usually a chemical is applied to the scalp which alters the structure of the hair chemically and a physical force is used to reshape the hair either curling (perm) or straitening (relaxing). After a period of time a neutralizing agent is applied counteracts the original chemical and locks the hair into its new form. Hair may be permanently colored as well. Here the pigments in the hair are neutralized and permanent dyes are used to change the color of the hair. Conducting these chemical causes permanent damage to hair and the author repeatedly emphasizes the need to determine what treatments hair has already received before applying new treatments so that hair is not too heavily damaged. There are many pictures in the book captioned by a statement along the lines of “this extremely beautiful hair has never been touched by any chemical treatment.”

A shampoo and possibly a conditioner is used to clean and care for hair on a regular basis. It is important to know your hair type in order to pick the correct shampoo. A shampoo removes grease and dirt from hair while a conditioner prevents tangling and protects the cuticle. Dr. Gray says that hair is washed much more often now than it had been in the past because shampoos are not as harsh as they used to be. I infer that you do not need to wash your hair nearly as much as we do.

Let your hair hang naturally and not pile it on top of your head while washing. Piling the hair will causing tangling and other problems. Do not scrub the hair too vigorously either. Shampoo should be applied mainly to the scalp while conditioner needs to be spread evenly throughout the hair

A Culture of War by Martin van Creveld

The Culture of War

The Culture of War describes the psychology behind war and how most common perceptions of war are incorrect. War is something that nearly all people at all times in history have enjoyed and wanted to engage in. The most outspoken pacifists often become the biggest proponents of war when the opportunity to fight arrives. Martin van Creveld is one of the best military historians in the world and he does a good job drawings lessons about mankind from his vast array of experience.

The section of the book which I found most interesting was Section Five: Contrasts. In this section van Creveld describes how the culture of war can broken down in a society. This does not mean that people don't fight any more--that will never happen--it means that the rules and traditions governing combat are destroyed. He desribes four ways that this can occur: two of them were particularly interesting to me.

1. The Wild Horde: All discipline breaks down and so an army warriors or a society dissolves into a unruly mob which is only capable of pillaging not winning battles. Peasant revolts are an example of this.
   
2. The Soulless Machine: Here the culture surrounding war becomes more important than war itself and hinders the army in combat. This can come from placing too much importance on traditions or deciding that war itself is something to be avoided. The first case happened in Germany before its defeats to Napoleon and the second happened in Germany after World War II.
   
3. Men Without Chests: Here men begin to look down on themselves and refuse to defend themselves or their culture. An example of this is European Jews before World War II.
   
4. Feminism: Here women's wishes and actions destroy a culture's warrior ethic by demanding to fight themselves or demeaning men who fight.
   

Case 3: Men Without Chests

The Jews in Europe were brave, but they were brave at enduring suffering not defending themselves. They had suffered all sorts of tribulations from the Europeans before the Holocaust and decided it was better not to fight back. They held the same beliefs about themselves as the anti-Semites. This came to an end when the state of Israel was founded because the Zionists deliberately began building a culture for the new Jewish state which allowed fighting,honored warriors, and expected military success.

I can see this mentality in myself today. I don't think the US is worth defending. I don't begrudge anyone else the opportunity to risk life and limb for the government, but my loyalty is only to my family and personal friends. I think I could be a successful warrior, but I don't feel I there is much worth the risk of defending. It would be interesting knowing more about the mentality of these cultures: they seem to come from powerlessness and a lack of confidence.

Case 4: Feminism

Women are integral to any warrior culture. Women's sexual lust for warriors and disdain for men who won't defend them is a key factor in motivating men to fight to protect them. Two of the best documented cases I know of are the women of the Confederate States of America and the women of England during the First World War. In both cases the women promised not to marry men who didn't fight in order to shame those who saw the pointlessness of the wars into throwing away their lives. They purposefully wore articles of clothing signifying that they held these views.

One way women can destroy a warrior culture is to not love the men who fight to defend them. When being a warrior does not help get women, men won't become warriors. I think loving warriors is hard wired into women because on the most common turn-ons for women is a man in uniform.

The second way women can destroy a warrior culture is to demand equality in the military. Their demands will be met in one of two ways.

• First, men and women might are allowed to join the military but held to different standards. Women will enter the military forces, but they will not be seen as equal to men because they are not held to the same standards. They are given the same rewards as men for doing less which demoralizes the male soldiers.
  
• Second, men and women can be held to the same standards int he military. In this case all the women will be almost permanently on the injured list and never make it into the front lines. There are women who can meet the physical standards set for men but they are a very small fraction of the population.
  

America has chosen the first choice here. I know our military is demoralized, but I don't know how much of this is due to the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how much is due to gender relations in the army. The fact that it has taken us this long to "win" in Iraq and looks like it will lose Afghanistan shows that our military is not operating at close to its capacity.

Eastern Europe 1740-1985 by Robin Okey

Eastern Europe 1740-1985: Feudalism to Communism

There are two versions of this book. The original covers up to 1980 while the version I read goes up to 1985. Both of these dates are before the fall of the Iron Curtain. Before reading this book I had a few ideas about how Eastern Europe had developed, but they were mostly based on assumptions. While reading this book I found most of the assumptions were incorrect. The first chapter gives an overview of Eastern Europe before 1740 (I still don't consider myself an expert on the pre-1740 time period) and the rest of the book covers the time period in the title: 1740-1985.

Eastern Europe started out similar to Western Europe under the feudal system. It was located between Russia and Germany; however, Germany was not yet the powerful centralized state it became under Bismark. For most of this time period (1740-1918) Eastern Europe was split up between great powers. At first it was divided between Turkey, the Hapsburgs, and Poland. Later Poland fell and was partitioned between Prussia and Russia. Following the First World War many of these nations gained independence, but their governments did not fair too well. It seems to be Okey's belief, these governments were already tottering before the Russians and Germans invaded. Today this twenty year period between the world wars is often assumed to be the natural order of things, but it really is not or at least hadn't been for a number of generations. From the revised perspective the cold war does not appear to have been a particularly bad time for Eastern Europe: most nations had their own state although Czechoslovakia (Czechs and Slavs) and Yugoslavia (all the Balkan nations) contained several different peoples. The countries were largely autonomous and seem to be doing compared to pre-World War I history.

A question that often comes up is why Eastern Europe fell behind Western Europe. The first reason seems to be that the nobility in Eastern Europe realized the threat of the tradesmen to their governmental dominance in time to crush their competition. In Western Europe this did not appear to happen, by the time the nobles realized that the growing middle class wanted more political power, they were unable to suppress them. After the nobles reestablished their control, towns in Eastern Europe began to shrink again. I am unclear about why the difference occurred maybe it was because Eastern Europe was controlled by large foreign empires: Habsburgs, Ottomans, and Russians while Western Europe was controlled by home grown dynasties.

In some ways it seems that Eastern Europe has always been playing catch up with the West. Its intellectuals sat in Paris Cafes. It was late joining the enlightenment and never really seems to have caught on to the idea. Still, the idea that they were completely behind everyone else is incorrect. Wages were higher in Western Europe than Eastern Europe during the period from 1850-1914, but Eastern Europeans were still earning more money than Russians and presumably Turks. The earning differential and outsourcing (yes this happened back then) which occurred because of it raised the standard of living of the East Europeans although many of them were still serfs. The Eastern Europeans experienced the problems of many today: there will always be someone with more capital (earning more than you) pushing from above and someone working for less money (with a lower standard of living) pushing from below.

In the period leading up to the first World War, the governing empires were forced to spend more and more energy playing different factions off against each other and suppressing nationalistic feelings. Bismark, the unifier of Germany, made a point of avoiding involvement in the Balkans [advice America would do well to follow today]. During the First World War the Eastern European nations did not rise up to fight for independence. Afterward the region was split up into different countries based upon the haggling of the German, French, and British government. Except for the Czechs, all of these countries drifted from democracy into fascism or communism. The Czechs were the most politically stable of all the countries both before and after the First World War which explains why they are the most prosperous former Soviet Bloc country today.

Following the Second World War, the countries were each liberated again although they quickly moved under communism. Most of the prewar national leadership was eliminated either through being voted out, dying in the war, or execution. Romania and Poland both avoided the show trials which happened in all other countries (it never pays to be the second place dictator). Although all countries were under the sway of the Soviet Union, they each resisted in their own way. Ceauşescu in Romania and Tito in Yugoslavia were able to gain a certain degree of autonomy although they were not very kind (read brutal) to their own people. Polish, Hungarian and other citizens fought and protested but suffered for this at the hands of soldiers.

As the soviet period continued, the Eastern German governments gradually took more and more capitalist ideas. The population moved into the cities and their diets included more meat and sugar and less bread and potatoes. When writing this book, Okey was unsure whether the countries would continue to liberalize or revert to hardcore communism. Thankfully, the former took place.

After reading this book, I am more optimistic about the future of Eastern Europe but more uncertain about the future of mankind. Eastern Europe is happily on a long term upward trend. Unfortunately, I now have a better understanding of how rare and fleeting liberty is in this world.

The Modern Diet Review by John Barban

The Modern Diet Review

I downloaded The Modern Diet Review by John Barban from The Fitness Black Book. The free download source is also located on The Fitness Black Book's website. The author, John Barban, maintains a blog where you can read more of his work. In his summary of the book Rusty Moore of TFBB says that Barban has worked successfully for some time in the fitness industry, a strike against him in my mind.

Barban breaks modern diets down into seven types: four of which can work, two of which are bad, and one is not yet evaluated. First, I will discuss John Barban's conclusion and then critique his description of each diet.

Barban says that all diets boil down to calories in minus calories out. He says that less processed foods can provide the most satisfaction [read nutrition?] per calorie, but this is a minor factor in comparison to your calorie deficit.

There are no such thing as ‘good’ foods and ‘bad’ foods. There is just food and how much of it you choose to eat.
Finding a diet style that helps you eat less total food without going insane is the key to lasting weight loss.

I completely disagree with this. I believe food quality and nutrition is the number one factor in health and consequently weight loss. The volume of food/calories is of secondary importance and the amount needed depends on food quality. While I agree with many of the things Barban says in this report, I cannot agree with his conclusion. I would encourage you to read this report, but take it with a grain of salt.

Diet categories

• Low fat (potentially good)
• Low carbohydrate (potentially good)
• Intermittent fasting (potentially good)
• Balanced nutrient ratios (potentially good)
• Cleansing/Detox (bad)
• Blood type (bad)
• Paleo (unknown)

Based upon Barban's findings low carbohydrate and low carbohydrate diets work but very poorly. They work by lowering the caloric intake and neither of them show significant weight loss after a year; however, low carb diets do show weight loss after three months and so are an improvement over low fat diets. I think both of these diets are starvation diets which only work as long as you are short of food through willpower or scarcity. Barban follows the standard party line that most fats are bad (saturated and trans) and that only unsaturated fats are good. I think this is incorrect based upon the lessons I have learned from the Weston A. Price Foundation and Eat Fat and Grow Slim. Animal fats are an essential part of your diet (although olive and coconut oil can replace them to a certain extent) and very healthy. You cannot eat too many of these healthy animal fats.

The intermittent fasting diet has been shown to work over the course of a year. I follow a combination of the Warrior Diet (a version of intermittent fasting) and Weston Price Foundation guidelines, so this is where I have the most experience. Barban approves of this method saying that intermittent fasting has been shown to maintain weight loss over the course of a year proving its effectiveness. He attributes this to calorie cutting because people will often skip another meal or day of food when they notice they are gaining weight. I disagree with him about intermittent fasting only working because of calorie deprivation. Ori Hofmekler has shown that metabolism increases with intermittent fasting so that you will lose weight even if your caloric intake remains constant.

John Barban's favorite is the balanced nutrient type diet because it trains you to eat a balanced diet (read: count calories/read nutrition labels) and prevents the need to eliminate any dietary group from your diet. Low fat and low carb diets fail because a dieter cannot give up eating foods he loves. This diet allows a reduction in calories without eliminating any foods. If you believe diets boil down to a calories in versus calories out equation, this is the best diet for you. I think this diet has potential but I would not favor it over intermittent fasting.

Cleansing and detox diets differ in that the former attempts to clean your intestinal tract while the latter tries to clean toxins from your body. Barban says that both of these lack scientific evidence and do not make sense logically. The intestinal tract can be viewed in videos and apparently most people do not have any intestinal buildup. I have not looked into this matter, so I will not comment on it. John then says that the concept of toxins is vaguely defined and that your body detoxes itself naturally and there is nothing you can do to aid the process. While I have not investigated detox diets, I disagree with Barban's conclusions. The liver and kidneys can obviously detoxify faster if they are healthy. They are filters and might need to get cleaned and rested from time to time. I don't know what a "toxin" is either but we get plenty of toxic substances that build up in our body like mercury in a Great Lakes fish. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that foods and drinks such as beet kvass can speed the rate of detoxification, but I am unsure if any scientific studies have investigated this.

John Barban calls the blood type diet an interesting idea with no basis in fact. People all over the world have different blood types and different diets and are healthy. Barban is probably correct about blood types, but I would guess that there is a genetic component to what makes a diet successful. On the whole, I would agree with Barban that the blood type diet does not work although I have not studied the matter thoroughly.

No studies have been conducted on the paleo diet, so Barban does not give a recommendation on this diet. He does say that the paleo diet seems to be a combination of the intermittent fasting and balanced nutrient diets.

White Devil by Steven Brumwell

White Devil: A True Story of War, Savagery And Vengeance in Colonial America

I finished reading White Devil by Stephen Brumsell a while ago, but it was very interesting so I read through my notes in order to review it. I have already made one post from this book about Robert Rogers getting scurvy on my primary blog. White Devil tells the story of Robert Roger's raid on St. Francis during the French and Indian War. Although the focus is on one particular battle, Brumwell tells the story within the context of the war as a whole.

While there are a vast number of lessons that can be drawn from this book, the interactions between and differences among the interacting cultures was the most interesting to me. In a way it hearkens back to a hierarchy of cultures I have proposed earlier. The groups discussed will be

1. French and English gentry and officers
2. Town dwellers in the new and old world
3. English farmers
4. French and English woodsmen
5. Native Americans
   

1. French and English gentry and officers

English and French officers and political leaders were at the top of the social ladder. In general they held everyone else in disdain and demanded unquestioning submission from military subordinates. Penalties in the British army were severe; I do not know about the French army. This led the officers to try and replace the independent frontiersmen with more controllable regulars as scouts and skirmishers. Today these officers are are stereotyped as being stupid and having bad tactics (see the movie The Last of the Mohicans as an example). This was sometimes the case as with Thomas Gage who did not perform well during either the French and Indian War or the American Revolution, but he was an exception not the rule. A few examples of skilled leaders who died leading their men are Wolfe, de Montcalm, and Howe. These men were not familiar with the American wilderness having grown up in Europe, but this lack of experience does not mean the lacked in intellect. In any case, it is undisputed that this caste controlled the grand strategy and strategic levels of the war.

1. Town dwellers in the New and Old World

These men formed the backbone of the armies. They were not the best fighters in world history, but modern opinion does not give them enough credit. These people did not live out on the frontier and most of them had spent their entire lives living in urban areas. They were not a warrior caste raised from the cradle to handle a gun and they were not skilled woodsmen; however, they went into battle with arguably the most hardened tribal warriors in the world and the best light infantrymen of all time. American soldiers face similar tribal warriors in Afghanistan today, but the modern Americans have a vast technological superiority. The English line troops had only muskets and so were on a technological parity with their opponents. These men fought realizing that they would most likely be tortured to death if captured. I do not think many from this group served in the ranger units, but their bravery cannot be questioned.

3. British farmers

I don't think Brumwell really distinguishes between the farmers and city dwellers in his book, but I think there is a difference. This category of men were farmers from America or recently conquered highlanders from Scotland. These men had a more martial spirit and were physically stronger than the city folk, but they did not have experience in the back woods. As the British began to field regular light infantry units in hopes of replacing the rangers, this category of men volunteered to fill the ranks. They learned their skills from Robert Rogers and went out on long ranging trips away from the safety of the army. Many of these men met their deaths during these excursions, but the fact that they reached the point of being able to battle the natives on close to equal terms is a wonder in itself. The Highlanders were brought to the colonies by the English for two reasons: first, to kill them off so they would not rebel again and second, because they were a tribal people they might be better able to deal with the natives. This did not turn out to be the case because the highlands were not a dense forest; the Scots were no good in the woods (without training).

French and English woodsmen

These men grew up on the frontier. They were in many ways as the same as the Native Americans, but there were some differences. First, I don't think they ever attained parity in wilderness fighting with the natives. The English at least did not have the cultural background of the Natives and came down with scurvy, a nutritional disease the Indians knew how to avoid. The English officers hated their rangers because of they were rebellious, but knew the officers could not do without them. Like the Indians, there were not many of these frontiersmen. It was impossible to replace casualties and my guess is that most of this class was just about exterminated during the war. The French were friendly with the Native Americans and traded with them as opposed to the British frontiersmen who were their enemies and usually trying to take their land. Consequently, the French woodsmen often went out to fight as one war party with the Natives.

Native Americans

The Native Americans drew upon a much smaller population base than England and France. They were impressed by the bravery of the European soldiers who made frontal assaults while taking lots of casualties, but the Indians would not risk their lives in this manner themselves. Each native death was a tragedy for the small Indian populations, so they quickly broke from contact whenever they were on the losing side of a fight. Even in such British victories as the Battle of Bushy Run, the British suffered more casualties than the Indians. One thing that the Indians could not do was empathize with their white opponents. They depopulated the Colonial countryside killing women and children without remorse, yet they are angry to this day that the English soldiers attacked their women and children at St. Francis. What was an weekly occurrence (having houses torched and families slaughtered) for the Colonists, was a once in a war happening for the Indians. The natives also tortured their captives to death frequently, so our modern image of the noble savage is not entirely true. Their fighting and wilderness skills were second to none. They often defeated vastly superior numbers of European soldiers and the main reason the raid on St. Francis was successful was that most of the Native warriors were gone. The native warriors of the Eastern North America may have been the best light infantry warriors in the history of the world.

From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia

From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia

Yale Richmond organized cultural exchange programs between the Soviet Bloc and the US during the cold war. He wrote this book to help Americans understand and do business in Russia. He has also written From Da to Yes to help Americans understand Eastern Europeans. Two additional books of his which I have not read are Understanding the Americans: A Handbook for Visitors to the United States helping people to understand the US and Into Africa: Intercultural Insights helping people understand Africans. From Nyet to Da was the first book of Richmond's that I read and it helped me understand my interactions with Russians.

To begin with one must understand the history of Russia. Russia sees itself as the third Rome; the first was in Italy, the second in Constantinople, and the third in Moscow. The word Czar means Caesar in Russian. Similar to Constantinople/Istanbul the third Rome sees itself as a bridge between the East and the West. The Mongols conquered and ruled Russia for some time (their descendants are the Tartars) giving Russians experience with Asiatic peoples. Russia also borders China and reaches all the way to Alaska which was formerly a part of Russia. Russia has been cut off from the West at times which made it miss the Renaissance. Since Russia lags generally lags behind Western Europe in terms of standard of living and technology it views its Western neighbors with a mixture of envy and contempt.

One helpful way to understand Russia (for me) is to compare and contrast it with the United States. I think in many ways the US is moving towards becoming a "Russia." Russians themselves see the US as a kindred country, so the approach should be mutually agreeable.

• Both countries are large and have dominated world relations for most of the 20th century. Russia has the largest landmass of any country in the world. The US does not have as large of an official territory, but its military empire spans the globe with bases in over 130 countries.
  
• Both countries have a strong German connection and have a love and hate relationship with Germany. Germans are the predominant ethnic group in the US and many American schools were taught in German until the First World War. Many Russians of German ancestry serve in the Russian bureaucracy; because of their efficiency, they help the (disorderly) Russians in their pursuit for order. Both Russia and the US battled Germany during both World Wars and had warm feelings for Germany between the world wars. In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg describes how America intellectuals fell in love with Hitler. Germany and the Soviet Union formed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at the beginning of the Second World War. Today Germany companies are the best at dealing with Russian bureaucracy.
  
• The American personality is tends towards individualism while the Russian personality tends toward collectivism. Americans look back on the their history and see a rugged pioneer hacking his way through the wilderness with his family. Russians look back and see the Mir an agricultural collective (almost as communism on a small scale) which allowed its inhabitants to survive the harsh Russian winters. I believe both nations are moving closer together in this regard. America is leaving its capitalistic roots while Russia has dissolved the Soviet Union. Both countries are moving towards the fascistic corporatism where large corporations run the country and operate on a system of public losses and private profits.
  
• Order is a related to individuality. Russians love order but tend to be a very disorderly people. Americans love individualism but end up complaining about how much conformism exists within the United States.
• Countries are usually referred to as a mother or a father. Germany is an obvious fatherland while Russia is a Mother country. The US is a neuter country at the present time; this is because it is moving from its German origins to becoming more of a matriarchal state. In 100 years America will no longer be the "home" land but the "mother" land.
  
• Russians are a very warm and emotional people. It takes a little while to get to know them, but once you do, they are great friends. Americans are a little big different. We are very easy to get to know but we never let our guard down all the way. I wonder if this is related to the different ways thoughts are policed in the USSA and the USSR. In the USSR if you complained about the government, you could get into big trouble. Consequently Russians needed to be careful in case the person they were speaking to was one of the (many) informants. In the US(S)A, we have political correctness. No one cares what you really think, but you can get into big trouble if you make an offensive joke or comment. We will speak with you but never tell you what we really think. Russians are coconuts: hard on the outside, soft on the inside. Americans are peaches: soft on the outside, hard on the inside.
  
• Americans tend to be more flexible and make compromises easily. They try to get a job done quickly and inexpensively. Russians follow instructions strictly so they can be inflexible. They want to get the job done and get the best deal possible.
  
• Russians do not equate time and money. For an American time equals money although many Americans decry this outlook. As an American I have to plan out my visits to Russians carefully. I think of my day in terms of spending a half hour on this and forty-five minutes on that. When I stop by to see a Russian friend, I will end up sitting, talking, and eating until late into the night.
  
• Alcohol is an important societal issue in both Russia and America. The traditional Russian drink is Vodka and apparently Russians drink a lot of it. A couple of Russians I have met thought this was an incorrect or old stereotype, but most have agreed with it. Russians seem to be open about and enjoy alcohol. Americans have a schizophrenic relationship with alcohol. During the 1920s alcohol was banned entirely. Many Americans feel alcohol is bad, but Americans still drink, mostly binge drinking. Americans are repressed and guilty about alcohol.
  

Sugar Blues by William Dufty

Sugar Blues

I agree with the main premise of Sugar Blues--that Sugar is the most harmful food in our diet today--but I think the book is a little bit over the top. Several threads run through this book. William Dufty traces the history of sugar from the ancient India to the modern day. He tells his personal story of sugar addiction, explains the health problems caused by sugar, and describes how corporate interests keep the dangers of sugar hidden.

Dufty's history is where I had the most disagreements. He does not cite many sources and makes strong allegations. I know some of the points that he made such as those about witch burning are incorrect, but my history is not strong enough to critique his overall accuracy. My guess is that his general historical narrative is correct but many of the minor points are wrong. Throughout history sugar has migrated throughout the world causing health problems and weakening civilizations; however, it is addictive so everyone uses it anyway. When a strong people or army discovers sugar, they instantly take it up and become lazy and weak leading to their downfall.

The history historical narrative ties into the problem of corporate interests. It may seem odd for me, an anarcho-capitalist, to decry big corporations, but this book illustrates the libertarian critique of corporatism. Big food companies have always wanted to use sugar because it allowed them to make their products less expensively unfortunately the sugar also greatly reduced quality. Consumers have generally revolted against being forced to eat these sugar laced products, so corporations have called upon the government to "regulate" them. One example of this occurred in England. Brewers discovered how to use sugar to brew beer less expensively, but this cheap beer had an inferior taste. Anyone who sold people beer made using sugar would be run out of town when people learned of the fraud. Eventually the government created an agency to monitor beer production and prevent the beer brewers using sugar during fermentation. Shortly after the founding of this agency, the agency changed its opinion and allowed beer manufacturers to use sugar. The consumers were helpless against the power of the government. This type of tale has repeated itself over and over during sugar's history.

Dufty discusses many dangers from sugar which I had not thought about before reading the book. I have written about these issues in more depth on my Complete Body blog. First, he describes how the health problems from smoking cigarettes may largely stem from drying the tobacco leaves too quickly causing sugar to form. A second anecdote is that many driving accidents may be caused by sugar. We all know that you get drowsy after a sugar high. Sugary products are sold along the highway everywhere. A driver will eat some sugary food, experience a sugar high, and then following low--at this point he is more vulnerable to getting in an accident. One crash will lead to another. Third, sugar makes you taste better to mosquitoes and increases your chance of getting bitten.

I would recommend reading Sugar Blues, but read it with a grain of salt. I think Dufty goes overboard in many sections of this polemic, but his central point is true. If you get a little too scared of sugar, it will not do you any harm.

Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
Liberal Fascism was the subject of the third Voxiversity. I read through this book as I have during the other courses. I learned a lot which is par for the course during this experience. There were a few major questions of mine that this book cleared up:

1. What is fascism?
2. How are Stalinists, Nazis, and liberals are related?
   
3. Why do Americans love the government so much?

I will briefly answer these questions and give a the Liberal Fascism Voxiversity links.

1. What is fascism?
Basically, fascism is a state religion. The state plays god and everything is directed by it to achieve some great goal. Every culture is different, so each country's goal is different. Each society has different faults which politicians can use to stir up national fervor. For Germany, it was utopia as a master race and with restored national greatness. For America, it's "leaving no child behind," letting no knee be skinned, and letting no one go without health care.

2. How are Stalinists, Nazis, and liberals related?
I knew that fascism and communism being opposite ends of the spectrum was poppycock before reading this book, but I was unclear about their connections. The Nazis are National-Socialists; the Communists are International-Socialists. The Nazis realized nationalism was a great motivator, so they added this into their socialist routine; in fact many of the Nazis were actually converted communists. The communists would send thugs to start fights at Nazi rallies, but all the thugs would be converted to Nazism before they could get the brawl started. Fascists are pragmatic socialists, so they simply took the nationalism and incorporated it into their socialist ideas.

The ideas which fermented in pre-World War II Italy and Germany were also popular in the US. They were also popular in England as well but this was not the topic of the book. American intelligentsia and politicians were enamored with and fawned over Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. Wilson hatched many of fascist ideas which were incorporated by Mussolini and Hitler. Roosevelt permanently reinstated Wilson' s ideas into American governance.

3. Why do Americans love the government so much?
For a nation which claims to love liberty, Americans seem sycophantically in love with the government. An American's only complaint is that the government should redistribute wealth to different people or that the army is being sent to invade the wrong country. I have long thought that this was almost a religious fervor, but now I realize that it is actually a real religion. Americans worship the government in the same way that ancients worshiped god: they sacrifice to it (taxes), pray that it gives them a good economy (economic stimuli), consider it the true source of knowledge (public schools), and entrust it with their health (medical regulations).

The Germans and Italians during the Second World War were not "bad people." They were normal people just like you and me who happened to be serving a government that did abominable things. Americans have swallowed the same clap-trap as the Germans. Modern Americans will follow their dear leader (whether it be Obama or Bush) into whatever calamity he leads them.

Information

• Wikipedia article on the book
• Wikipedia article on Jonah Goldberg

Classes

• Announcement
• Introduction
• Introduction Review
• Chapter One
• Chapter Two
• Chapter Three
• Chapter Four
• Chapter Five
• Chapter Six
• Chapter Seven
• Chapter Eight
• Chapter Nine
• Chapter Ten
• Afterward
• Final Quiz

Eat Fat and Grow Slim

Eat Fat and Grow Slim by Richard Mackarness, M.B.,B.S.

In the past I had always thought that the low carb craze just stemmed from some poor graduate student who needed to finish his dissertation or from a poorly designed dietary study that got researchers started off on the wrong track. I guessed that as time went on "Science" would come around to what tradition had been saying all along that animal fat was the basis for a healthy diet. When I read Eat Fat and Grow Slim I realized that this will not be the case.

This book was published in 1958 and 50 years later the medical establishment is still barking up the wrong tree. Now that I think about it, Weston Price's work was published in the 1930s and is still being ignored. As described in the first chapter William Harvey and William Banting who advocated a the high fat diet in the 1850s and were run out of town by the medical establishment. Although the benefits of high fat diets have long been known, mankind remains willfully ignorant.

Mackarness addresses some objections to a high fat diet in the third chapter which sound very familiar:

1. High-fat diets are nauseating and make you bilious. No one could stick to such a diet for long enough to lose weight.
2. High-fat diets cause ketosis and make you ill.
3. High-fat diets may be all right in cold weather but they are too heating in hot weather.
4. High-fat diets are unbalanced and cause deficiency diseases.
5. High-fat diets cause heart disease.

One of the most interesting points in the book came during the third section of this chapter where he describes the Eskimos and how they lived. Eskimos were not slightly fat to keep themselves warm; they were actually very thin and only their fur clothes gave them the impression of being portly. An Eskimo actually had very little need to generate body heat: their warm clothing kept them warmer than a New Yorker would be during the middle of winter and their houses varied between 60 and 90 degrees depending on how close to the ceiling you were.

The book goes on to give sample diets, recommend foods, and address further concerns that a person might have about a high fat diet. I agree with most of these points although the book does not stress the importance of =organ meats. This is most likely due to the fact that organ meats were eaten more commonly at this time and that the book seems to be based on the first hand experience of western medical doctors who had discovered their textbooks were incorrect instead of a survey of indigenous cultures.

The Warrior Diet

The Warrior Diet: Switch on Your Biological Powerhouse For High Energy, Explosive Strength, and a Leaner, Harder Body

The warrior diet is based upon an analysis of several of my interests. In the process of recommending a proper diet and lifestyle Ori Hofmekler looks at ancient cultures mostly the Romans and Greeks but also the Mongols. He discusses when to eat as well as what to eat. He also gives recommendations for how to workout.

The main feature I took away from the book was the concept of cycling times of over-eating and under-eating throughout the day. Hofmekler recommends eating a big meal in the evening and not eating much throughout the rest of the day. Before dinner you can have light foods such as vegetables and water, but you are supposed to avoid carbohydrates and meats. The one exception is a recovery meal after a workout. I have adopted this eating style and have been very pleased with it. I do not hold to it perfectly, but Hofmekler does not say one needs to be puritanical about it. I have found that I have more energy if I skip lunch and get a lot more accomplished during the afternoon.

The warrior diet is one of freedom where you don't need to count calories. It is more based upon feeling and enjoying the diet and doesn't require tracking your diet with a spreadsheet. In the book, Hofmekler says that you can go off the diet for special occasions because you will want to return to it afterward. I have found this to be true. Whenever I visit my family I switch to eating three normal meals a day and have no trouble going back to one meal a day when I return to school.

Hofmekler disagrees with the Weston A. Price Foundation about several points including animal fats, lean meats, and cod liver oil. I side with the WAPF on these topics, but I see these disagreements as being separate from the main message of the warrior diet. I recommend following the Warrior Diet concepts, but choosing your foods based upon the Weston Price recommendations

The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens is one of the most famous wars in history. It involved nearly all the Greek city states who were drawn into the war as allies of one city or the other. Thucydides lived through the war and actually served as a general for Athens during part of the war. The parallels between America's foreign policy and this war make the book especially interesting. Athens sent its largest army ever off to fight in Sicily: it never returned. This experience has been repeated by many successive powers such as Rome in the Teutoburg Forest and Great Britain in Afghanistan.

Overall I found this book entertaining, enlightening, and horrifying. Several times Athens kills all the men inside a city for having the temerity to resist her. From one of these attacks come they saying "the strong do what they may, the weak what they must."

Information

• Wikipedia article on the Peloponnesian War
• Wikipedia article on Thucydides

Voxiversity Classes

• Introduction
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 2b
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Section 5
• Section 6
• Section 7
• Section 8
• Section 9
• Final

Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

Basic Economics 2nd Ed: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy, Revised and Expanded Edition

This is one of the first books I read on economics outside of school. I have since learned a lot more about economics, but this gave me a good starting point for my studies. I am a libertarian/anarchist and follow the school of Austrian economics, but this book is a general defense of free market principles not advocating Austrian economics.

Almost everyone today believes in central planning even if they call themselves a republican or a supporter of free markets. A person in this category will generally say they believe in the free markets most of the time, but in some cases the government must step in. Sowell goes through many of the most common cases and explains exactly why this thinking is flawed. It explains why you do not want government intervention in these circumstances. It does this in terminology that is easy to understand.

I found this book very enjoyable and so I recommended it to a friend who I often debated on economic issues. He changed his views because of this book although they are still not the same as mine. At the present I like to argue from the moral point of view, "thou shall not steal," this book argues from the practical point of view, "you're better of if you don't steal," which is more in line with what people want/need to hear.

America's Great Depression

America's Great Depression

This book was the subject of the second Voxiversity Course. This book explained why the great depression of the 1930s occurred according to the Austrian school of economics. It explained It also details how the government tried to control the economy in a manner that helped me a novice on the topic understand the matter. I think it would also be useful for a more experienced economist.

Voxiversity Classes

• Announcement
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Section 5
• Section 6
• Section 7
• Section 8
• Section 9
• Section 10
• Section 11
• Section 12
• Review

From Da to Yes: Understanding the Eastern Europeans

From Da to Yes (Interact)

Yale Richmond worked organizing cultural exchanges for the United States during the Cold War. He gained a lot of experience dealing with countries which were behind the Iron Curtain and in this book he shares his understanding of each country. I have written a summary of this book on my other blog.

• Overview
  
• Balts
  
• East Slavs
• Non-Slavs
  
• South Slavs
• West Slavs
  

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price is probably the most important book on nutrition published in the last century. I will first summarize the content of the book and then summarize a couple of my favorite anecdotes...

The first section of the book discusses specific indigenous cultures that Dr. Price studied. The cultures are:
1) Swiss
2) Gaelics
3) Eskimo
4) North American Indians
5) Melanesians
6) Polynesians
7) African Tribes
8) Australian Aborigines
9) Torres Straight Islanders
10) New Zealand Maori
11) Ancient Peruvians
12) Isolated Modern Peruvians

In the second part of the book Dr. Price analyzes the traditional peoples and their diets and describes studies which he carried out. He also writes about modern society and the reasons for its poor state of health.

I found the book fascinating. It took me a while to read (it is 500 pages of small print), but it was definitely worth the time spent. My favorite part was the first section where Dr. Price discusses his interactions with primitive cultures. Many of the anecdotes were hard to believe. I learned about

1) an Eskimo woman who had 16 children with no complications,
2) a miner lost in Alaska whose life was saved by the nutritional wisdom of some Eskimos who found him,
3) the Masai tribe in Africa who were tremendous physical specimens (many of their women were close to 7 feet tall),
4) a pacific islander who swam in the ocean for something like 30 hours straight while helping rescue people from a sinking ship

If you know about the diet that Dr. Weston Price advocates, this book will explain why Dr. Price broke so sharply with modern scientific thought. It will also allow you to open your mind and challenge many strongly held beliefs you may have about nutrition.

I have barely scratched the surface of the wisdom contained in this book. For further information about Dr. Weston Price’s ideas look at the Weston A Price Foundation.

Health

• 8 Steps to a Pain Free Back
• Eat Fat and Grow Slim by Richard Mackarness
• The Modern Diet Review by John Barban
  
• Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price
• Shut Your Mouth and Save Your Life by George Catlin
  
• Sugar Blues by William Dufty
  
• The Warrior Diet by Ori Hofmekler
• The World of Hair by John Gray
• The Vitamin Code by Massoud Arvanaghi and Mike Yorkey
  

Economics

• America's Great Depression by Murray Rothbard
• Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell
• The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
  

Historical Books

• The Culture of War by Martin van Creveld
  
• Eastern Europe 1740-1985 by Robin Okey
  
• Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
• The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
• White Devil by Stephen Brumwell

Cultural Books

• From Da to Yes: Understanding the East Europeans by Yale Richmond
• From Nyet to Da: Understanding the New Russia
• The Icon and the Ax:  An Interpretive History of Russian Culture by James Billington