|
|
|
McPhersonSentinel - McPherson, KS
  • Column: THE PURSUIT OF SANITY: The pasteurized society

  • It really annoyed me when the FDA officially labeled raw milk “inherently dangerous.”
    According to the government website, their reasoning was that raw milk “may contain a whole host of pathogens.” For those reading this who like to think clearly, there is a big red flag here.
    • email print
      Comment
  • It really annoyed me when the FDA officially labeled raw milk “inherently dangerous.”
    According to the government website, their reasoning was that raw milk “may contain a whole host of pathogens.” For those reading this who like to think clearly, there is a big red flag here. The word “inherently” means that the characteristic is permanent or innate in the thing being described. If raw milk “may contain” Salmonella, E. coli, or Listeria, then it isn’t inherently dangerous: it is “maybe dangerous,” and that’s all. Calling it inherently dangerous is a lie.
    But really that is not the whole story. The reason that milk—the stuff men have been delightfully chugging for thousands of years—is all of a sudden “inherently dangerous” and illegal, is not because cows changed. It is because men changed.
    Instead of walking out in the morning to milk the cow and then returning indoors to pour the milk onto a bowl of porridge, the modern man consumes milk that has gone through a very involved process, probably travelling great distances and passing through a host of machines along the way. So of course this type of product is going to be dangerous by the time it hits the shelves. Industrial methods simply cannot handle milk without turning it into a poisonous white liquid.
    But does this mean that milk itself is inherently dangerous? Or does it mean that the industrial process is inherently dangerous? Again, clear thinking readers will say that it is obviously the latter. Nonetheless, pasteurization is now a requirement for all milk sold to the public. No one, not even the guy who lives next-door to the dairy farmer, gets to drink it fresh.
    The small dairy farmer, of course, cannot afford pasteurization. It’s expensive. So he must either close his doors or sell his brand to one of the big guys. He loses his independence and everyone else loses their fresh milk. The only one who wins is the guy who runs the factory—the only winner is the guy who made milk “dangerous” in the first place. That’s the great irony of our age. We create our own problems, and instead of fixing the problem—instead of closing the factory—we invent some new and expensive technology to fix the problem we created, and everyone has to adopt it or die. Most small farms die—and it is a completely new form of death—it is death by someone else’s disease. The factory system is diseased, and yet it is the only survivor at the end of the day.
    This all might seem like petty politics, but there is a more sinister side to the story. What happens when this same bad reasoning gets unconsciously applied, not only to our food, but also to our children? We create an unnatural problem, and then an unnatural solution, and then force everyone to use the unnatural solution, even if they would rather just avoid the problem in the first place.
    Page 2 of 3 - For example, it is obvious that the modern school system is based on the factory system.
    It is designed to manufacture humans according to strict specifications—all uniform with as little deviation from the norm as possible. All with a strict set of procedures in their heads, all of them able to give the right set of answer to a limited set of problems. We want “employers” to have a reliable product, after all.
    Now think about all the debate regarding “vaccination” and “herd immunity.” Why does it not occur to anyone that maybe the need for “herd immunity” would evaporate on the spot if we didn’t send children to live in “herds” in the first place? Is it not reasonable to say that sending children, all day every day, off to mingle in the hoard, is probably the number one cause of “preventable childhood diseases?”
    Haven’t we all heard people say: “I don’t want those unvaccinated children in school with my children.” What is the underlying assumption in such statements? It is that school is where diseases are spread. It is that the mass exposure of such environments cannot be endured without medication.
    Think back to the milk problem. Milk has been consumed for thousands of years. It did not become dangerous until our methods became dangerous, and rather than fix our methods we created an invasive treatment that helped mass production but was at the same time oppressive to the small farmer.
    Children have been around just as long as milk—why is it that all of a sudden the “unvaccinated” ones, which is another way of saying the natural ones, are considered by the public to be “inherently dangerous”—just like milk.
    Why is it that a child who has not received the invasive “chemical treatment” is assumed to be unclean? I find this disturbing—no, I find it evil. If we are going to talk of “anti-child” attitudes in our society, I think this needs to be one of them.
    Take a deep breath: I haven’t said one word against anyone who wants to vaccinate their children. I’m not condemning anyone—I’m defending. I’m defending those who opt-out of the treatment from the condemnation being sent their way. When this attitude toward the natural child as “inherently dangerous” begins to take root in society, something must be said. It can’t be tolerated.
    Milk is one thing—you can lie about the “inherent dangers” of milk with your bad logic all day long. I will be annoyed, of course, but I will probably leave you alone. But if you want to extend that bad logic to babies and children, then we’ve moved beyond politeness.
    Page 3 of 3 - If the process of natural birth and growth has become so dehumanized that normal, healthy babies and children are publicly despised, when a newborn is shunned and “quarantined” as if it were a danger to others until it receives the approved chemical treatment, then we have truly become the anti-child civilization. Raw children, like raw milk, might soon become illegal. We’ll only have “pasteurized people” in our midst.
    The opinions in this column do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the The McPherson Sentinel or GateHouse Media. If you have any related questions or suggestions that you would like to see explored here, simply email me at daniel.schwindt@gmail.com.

        calendar