Are coconuts part of the fruitarian diet?

I recently blogged about mushrooms on a fruitarian diet: here, to which, in a follow-up comment, Orange pondered my views on coconut water..

Well, I see no need to make this a lengthy post at all. I stand by what I wrote in the mushroom post, about my redefinition of the food pyramid. With the aspiration to eat as high within the triangle as possible. (before possibly transcending food altogether and entering into the realms of breatharianism! .. aah.. but I dream, and don't intend to go into that right now).. So where are the coconuts placed within the pyramid I propose?.. Well, for sure they are far from being the coarse food of butchered flesh. And being generally uncooked, surely better than most other foods.. But, they are most clearly notfruit, and therefore, although high in the pyramid, in my mind, do clearly not occupy the same ranking as fruit, and thus I don't see them as ideal as I do fruit.


Where are the coconuts?
Just a couple of little facts about coconuts that likely most of you may be aware of already.. Coconuts are eaten at pretty much any stage.. Initially the outer husk is green or light brown, and internally they bear very little flesh, and are mostly of liquid content.. As they mature, flesh begins to form, and the liquid lessens.. These are often called Jelly nuts, or Green coconuts. Maturing yet further, the juice slowly gets converted into flesh which hardens yet further.. It is at this stage that people in the western world are likely to see them dehusked and on supermarket shelves.. This was about the only stage I'd ever seen a coconut until first visiting the tropics, and I recall being amazed at just how tough that outer husk is! - I recall also, watching "Jungle Book as a kid", and realise that the artists rendition of what a coconut tree looked like, with dehusked coconuts forming on the palms, gave an altogether false view of coconut palms..

As the coconut moves yet further through it's lifecycle (provided the husk has not been removed!), the flesh softens some once more, and swells to fill up much of the interior of the coconut. At this stage, the coconut interior swell is called "the angel" or "the fairy", and the texture of it is, well, fluffy and quite different. What's happening is that the coconut is preparing to sprout, and if left unopened, will likely begin doing so shortly..

In the tropics the jelly nuts are often sold by street vendours who will dehusk, and/or machete open them for you on demand. In this way, I consider them to be much more physiologically compatible with our needs, than pretty much any other commercially available nut, that have all been subjected to heat and consequential dehydration, but knowing the nut grows, the fairy forms, and the seed sprouts, I personally choose to let be. Given the availability of an abundance of more suitable food (fruit), I don't believe coconuts should truly ultimately be part of a fruitarian diet.

Different dictionaries.

After that recent debate I began with some paleo bods (see my last post), I've had time to think some about their stand point.

It became clear to me that they are basically in denial of their inner ability to extend love beyond themselves and their immediate family. Perhaps as a consequence of not being able to do so, they have also redefined words to have different interpretations, and even appear to have their own version of what they consider logical. When faced with the outright question of why they make the distinctions they do, they have more or less similar arguments to that a sexist would have justifying sexism, a white supremeist justifying supposed white superiority and a racist justifying racism.. They're women goddamn you! They're only men, what else do you expect?! They're not white you fool! They are not one of us, imbecile! They're animals pea brain!. Generally with the expletive added to belittle the questioner. Thus the question is altogether avoided. In other words, there is no rational answer.

One word they repeatedly branded in a form which based on any current dictionary really makes little sense, was "respect".

Now according to dictionary.com, respect as a verb has the following definitions:

–verb (used with object)
1. to hold in esteem or honor.
2. show regard or consideration for: to respect someone's rights.
3. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person's privacy.
4. to relate or have reference to.

They are using the word in relationship to animals that they enjoy hunting/killing, claiming that when doing so, they respect the animal. I countered them on numerous occasion, stating that there is no way one can reasonably say or suppose that one can be showing respect for an animal, if their intention is to kill, eat and wear it. But many insisted that I was wrong. (I noted that instead of being directed to some written definition to support their claims, I was told to F'off, or similar).

The only thing I can imagine they actually really meant, though none of them said as such, was that they (following definition no. 1) hold in esteem or honor, not the animal itself, but the slaughtered carcass of the animal.. That would make more sense..

Spock used to be my role model in logic..
Now look what the meat eaters have done to him!
Another word they seemed to be using in a manner I'm unaccustomed to, was "peacefulness", claiming bizarrely enough that hunting was a peaceful occupation.. I tried to get them to reverse the tables, and just try to imagine the peace the animal would be experiencing, but as far as I can ascertain, that is either not something they are capable of, or they just don't want to do so.

At least one comment there gave the impression that laws and morals are basically the same thing. and that laws are fundamentally imposed morals. I hasten to disagree with that one, for certainly it is not necessary that anything which is legally correct may be considered moral and also that anything which is not forbidden by law should be necessarily moral. Morals and ethics are to the best of my knowledge synonymous (please correct if wrong), and are basically individual characteristics we have. They are the criterion for what you believe is right or wrong. Naturally, as we are broadly shaped by our environments and upbringing, it's often the case that morals are widely shared and accepted, with minor variations from individual to individual.

It appears that for some unknown reason, the set of morals shared by vegans is often grossly expanded from that of the zombie flesh eater, the flesh eaters recognizing this fact often use it to claim falsely that we believe we are in some way superior. This is by no means meant as a compliment. In fact, as an intended insult, it shows that rather than just face the reality of our differences, for some reason they feel threatened and become defensive.

I almost feel like the omnivores fear the vegans, like we are a threat to their status quo. It was a common response from the paleo to throw profanity at me, I sort of lost count of how many times I was told to F on out of there, or told I was talking shit (though never any particular specific reference to what it was that was actually shit). One guy would have me fed to the lions! :)

In my opinion insults and profanity are poor excuses for debate, and often employed when the debater is struggling or unable to continue to debate rationally.

It's odd that vegans are often accused of being such an angry lot, of course, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but anger at meat eaters is the last thing I feel. I have many friends and family that enjoy flesh. We all get on fine. I feel more a frustration that they are so caught up in the dark ages, that their only really defense they have, given the abundance of alternative on supermarket shelves, is that well, Eskimos eat meat, and wouldn't survive without it. So would I be wrong in thinking the writer of that might themselves be an Eskimo? Likely, yes...

I don't really see what relevance it has, what Eskimos choose to eat. Nor the Masai, nor the rainforest nomads. Their environments are radically different to ours. Sure, I would question they're choices too.. and wonder why the Masai haven't planted mango trees everywhere, and I would happily debate that with them, but using them as an excuse for ones own habits bears no relationship with reality.

Primal food (meat etc) vs. Predominantly fruit.

I've heard that durianrider Harley, will soon be having a face off with a guy named Richard Nikoley who runs the blog Free the Animal.

Richard is this guy who blogs about eating meat with the occasional attempt at justifying his actions through moral. I say occasional, as I have read recently that he plans shortly to do so. So maybe I exaggerate some. Anyhow, the latest I have heard is that the debate is to be hosted/moderated by Steven Prussack of "Raw Vegan Radio" (anyone have a web address or can confirm that?), probably within a couple of weeks from now.

I for one am curious to follow the debate, and see the final outcome.

After having myself recently also begun my own little debate with Richard and his crew, directly on his blog, I can safely say that the majority of his readers, and Richard himself appear to be unable to hold a rational debate without resorting to insult and profanity. Those commenting on his blog appear quite full of aggression and anger, which I guess is not surprising considering their diets.

Actually, I was a little disappointed that Richard would not man up to simple questions I asked him, preferring instead to skirt around issues rather like a politician does to avoid answering something directly that they are perhaps otherwise unable to tackle truthfully. Actually, my focus of questioning was mostly revolving around the ethics of animal eating, and because I'm a persistent bugger, I eventually got Richard to state his opinion that he is predominantly a selfish person who really doesn't care what happens to animals so long as they end up on his plate. For him it's all about taste.

Surprisingly, despite a few people throwing around the phrase that meat is superior nutrition, and many apparently believing that this was an unquestionable fact, not one person offered any real evidence to support that claim.

I found also that Richard and his crew appear to be using a different dictionary to most, they define words in very different ways to what I am used to. For them, peace is one sided, and if they are inflicting harm on another, they believe they can do so peacefully. Respect is another word which they have a very different understanding of, for them they brandish the word respect in combination of taking the life of another, for me this action is never respectful of that others life, but for them, they like to believe that it is. Actually, there is some contention there, as when pushed Richard seemed to air a degree of uncertainty in his view on that.

When I finally felt that I had had enough insults thrown at me, misquoted and false conclusions drawn about me, I withdrew. The whole debate took place over 3 days I think, and can be read here:

See the comments under his post

Interestingly, on leaving, quite a few people have added further comments that I sort of wanted to jump in and tackle, but I don't really see what the point would be, as I know that likely is that once more I would end up having my words twisted. To Richard, though, who responded to my statement that to the best of my knowledge morals cannot really be imposed on anyone, or any other other species or being. He came back and said:

It's a prima facie fact that morals are imposed upon people in abundance. Ever read a law book? What, you think, statutes are based in thin air, out of ass ideas? How about murder? Rape? Kidnapping and robbery?

I'd like to say that if you ever stumble upon this Richard, then please see that once more we have different dictionaries, because for me, morals and laws are 2 very different things. The law may say don't kill another human, but if it is truly in someones natures and desire to do so, they will find a way to do so and attempt to not get caught.

You ask me also directly, Richard, whether or not I am about persuasion, or if I would resort to legislation. I say forget the legislation. I would like for humans to have a global shift in conscience, and for laws to be unnecessary. I do not like governments or laws, and tolerate them merely because I must. If the road says 80 is the limit, and it's clear and safe to do 100, and I am guaranteed there are no cops, then I will do 100.

And to Sonagi, who threw in his final snide comments, I would add that once more you fail to report the truth and that I never derided anyone for disagreeing with me. I criticized people like yourself for not being able to hold a rational/logical debate and for twisting words and misquoting. I am quite at ease with outright disagreement. And my reference to Jorge was not about his English per se, at the time of writing I was not thinking at all about him not being a native english speaker, speaking several languages myself, I understand the difficulties of debating a language other than my own, and admire him for doing so. I was referring purely to his insistence that animal killers respect the animals they kill..

Anyhow.. I sort of felt that I wanted to get this out of my system. Too time consuming and a waste of energy really. I hope Harley enjoys himself, but I don't expect either party to change their view.

(I recall some years ago, when I used to run a forum, that I started a similar debate that focused on Fox hunting.. it went on for far too long, and got no where really. you can read it here: The Fox Hunting Debate).

The Woodstock Fruit Festival - August 2011

It appears that this year too, an international fruitarian (of sorts) get together will be held:

The Woodstock Fruit Festival.

I believe last years fruitarian gathering held in Brittany, France, ran along the very roughly interpreted guidelines of a rainbow gathering, an open invitation to anyone interested to come along free of charge, and with little or no prior thought put into it.

Beyond the focus on fruit, this years gathering bears likely little to no resemblance to last years event.. It appears to be far more structured, with a prearranged schedule of events already outlined for each day (available to peruse on their website), guest speakers, yoga, workouts etc etc.

Sadly though, unlike last years event, judging by some of the guest speakers on hand, it is highly unlikely that their flavour of fruitarianism will fully envelope the true meaning of the word, but will more likely revolve around the unnecessary complexity of calories, exercise, sugars, fats and the far from complete and thus highly flaky science of nutrition. I guess for some that's something to look forward to, and I have no doubts that many people need to approach things from this angle in order to have confidence in their success.

To be fair, it's probably unjust for me to be making comparisons to the gathering of last summer, clearly the 2 gatherings are of very different natures, as are the organisers. I gather this one is being organised by Michael Arnstein who I'm told (though unconfirmed!) has previously openly admitted to eating fish on occasion, and thus I'm supposing will no doubt also lack the ethical component that I believe fruitarianism requires for completion.. Though, giving him the benefit of the doubt, it is possible he has since made further refinements to his habits and lifestyle.. shucks, I've eaten fish in the past, and other equal atrocities, I just wasn't calling myself fruitarian at that time.



Prices to attend range from a more basic camping arrangement at $795 for the week, to queen rooms with own bathroom for $1,395. Although the event is supposedly nonprofit and I personally believe these prices to be a tad steep, the organisers have promised to let you eat as much durian as you like, so no doubt they'll be some attending that'll be getting more than their moneys worth. I know I would try! .. But no.. So, although there's a part of me that would certainly relish the idea of participating, I've no plans to head anywhere this year. Certainly not overseas anywhere.. Oh.. I should mention also that those on a low budget can ask to work as a volunteer there for the week, thus working in exchange for attending. Likely a good option for those on a shoe string budget.

The Woodstock Fruit Festival will be held in New York state, between August 18th and August 25th this year (2011), with details of precise location and directions available on the website, together with more details about the guest speakers, a FAQ page and even a forum.

Overall, it is very positive to see such fruit centered events happening increasingly more frequently, and I have little doubt that this one will most assuredly inspire and influence many, and spark a bountiful supply of new friendships. I sincerely wish for many new free thinking fruit fruitarians to hatch and spring forth from it.

Crazy World News - 12 - Breast Milk Ice Cream anyone?

Now here's another bizarre bit of news Kvĕta recently made me aware of...

Get this.. Back on my home shores of Britain, some London shop recently began selling ice cream made from human breast milk...



Apparently the women expressing this milk all responded to a newspaper advert, and are, or were, at least, being paid to supply the shop with whatever amount they feel they were able to comfortably contribute.. Now, I recall some years ago how my sister was obliged to express her milk to provide food for her baby while she finished off her last term at a school she was teaching at, and I can tell you it was slow progress, and clearly uncomfortable, bordering on painful, and the amount one can reasonably express is very little.. And what then of the poor baby who in the ice-cream scenario must surely be going amiss..

Breast Milk at £15 a bowl
London shop sells breast milk ice-cream - Baby Gaga

I don't know, I'm sort of in 2 minds about this one.. Part of me thinks that at least in such cases, there is a certain degree of free will within the process (I guess also that many women choose to force ween their babies at early ages, or forgo breast feeding entirely in favour of supposedly nutritionally superior powdered milk formula), clearly not one found within the dairy industry who inhumanely systematically rob the poor calves of their naturally given foods, if not of their lives entirely, and cruelly deprive their mothers of the pleasure of their child's touch and comforting proximity.

I know there's that poster going around with the cow camouflaged painted woman, ready to offer her udders to the milking machines.. I think it's one of those "Got Milk" PeTA (People for the ethical Treatment of Animals) posters, meant to shock, you may know the one I'm referring too. It's designed to make one see more clearly what milk actually is, and I have no doubt, bears with it a certain degree of effectiveness.

Surprisingly, Kveta also stumbled upon one of those opinion polls on a Czech newspaper website, asking whether or not readers would consider trying the ice-cream, and an unbelievable 50% plus voted that yes, they clearly would..

Also, and this is going back 2 years or so, PeTA actually contacted some large American ice-cream producer, and suggested they begin substituting their Cows Milk for human Breast Milk to produce their ice-cream, and from the looks of this video, there wasn't much enthusiasm..


Anyhow, I see from the video that there is some Swiss company that had already tried the idea of using mothers milk in their recipes, but I'm guessing through popular demand, were forced to cease with their activities. It looks like the same fate awaited the London Cafe, as within a week or so of announcing their wares to the public, and surprisingly selling out much faster than expected, they were also forced into ending their short-lived business venture, as stocks were seized by overzealous council officials on the pretext of the milk being potentially health hazardous.

Breast Milk Ice-cream banned

Yeah, now why can't they step up and do the same thing with "normal" conventional ice-cream, who's milk may contain any number of pathogens, residue hormones and drugs, pus and of course it's enhanced mucus forming qualities, and that's not to mention the sugar enhancements, fats and whatever else they deem will make the product more relishable, addictive and moreish.

What are the best fruits to eat?

Another recent question I've received, this time from a reader, Anna, in California, who asks:

I'm a vegetarian turned fruitarian (thanks to your website). Can you please help me out with a starter grocery list? I live in California, so tropical fruit's aren't abundant here. I love almost all fruits, but are there any in particular you would recommend/are against? Any other advice would also be appreciated.

Good question, and one that I've sort of tackled before in bits and pieces, so I'll try and group those thoughts together here.

OK.. I ultimately sincerely believe that the whole idea of someone else advising another of the best foods to eat, what to eat, when to eat, amounts to eat etc, is folly. It is an erroneous path to expect another to know better than ourselves what appeals most at any given point in time.

Unfortunately it seems it is the path that many seek. The need for guidance is understandable, but guidance beyond the simple basic understanding of what constitutes true food, is generally false. Sure there are many people that try to sell such flawed knowledge, pretending that only they know what is best for you. What I teach is different. The lesson I try to give (away) is that beyond the understanding that fruit is the highest of all food, the only food with the potential of being given completely karmically free, and the purist most life giving and nourishing solid food sustenance found on the face of the Earth, beyond this simple knowledge, that which the body will most benefit from eating at any given time, not allowing invalid food choices to enter the arena (ie no condiments, cooking, dehydrating or over processing of ones fruits etc.), is purely unknown to anyone but the person asking. What folly it would be for me, or anyone, to try tell someone they should eat nectarines in abundance when they are in season.

You should eat what appeals to you at every given meal. So don't think, oh, someone is eating 20 bananas daily, and fairing very well on them, that you should do the same. Every meal is different. Every meal your body will tell you what appeals most. Use your nose and senses to judge what fruit will best suit your needs at any given point in time. Learn to trust your instincts again. Don't follow a recipe book. Don't fall into the trap of believing you need some complex mathematical formula to obtain the correct ratio of carbohydrates to fat and protein. Don't fall into the trap of over complicating your food through complex recipes. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that someone else knows better than you do, what to eat right now. Nobody does. I go through months without eating any bananas. This is because when I try to eat them, I might have a few mouthfuls, and then the taste changes, and they are no longer appealing. But for me to advice you not to eat them would be ludicrous. They are a good food, when they appeal. At the moment, I am going through a phase where I get through maybe 5 or 6 a day, which is more than I've ever eaten of them in my life. Avocados which generally appeal to me, I am not finding so attractive. But desires continuously fluctuate depending on momentary physiological needs.

Don't fall into the trap of classifying certain fruits as sugars, and others as fats. Don't believe you need to count calories. All these are traps, and part of a ploy to scare you into believing you need to pay for mentoring. Don't believe any of that superfood nonsense of expensive pills, potions and powders. There are no such things outside of pure ripe fresh ready to eat fruit.

The truth is simple. Don't fall into the trap of believing you need to drink X amounts of litres of water daily. Force feeding yourself, or force drinking to fit into some preconceived pattern is folly.

At least, these are what I believe to be traps and conclusions reached through false logic. I'm aware that my voice is in the minority, and that there are large movements that promote ways of thinking grossly in opposition to mine.

So I say, eat when hungry, look at your fruit, which type appeals most right now? Eat that. Stop when no longer hungry. If hunger resurfaces once more in 20 minutes, then choose again. Don't restrict yourself to meals. 3 meals a day is probably a good pattern for omnivorous humans, but for fruit eaters, eat when hungry, not when the clock tells you too. Likewise for drinking. If you sincerely eat just fruit, the need for water will diminish and likely vanish altogether unless much physically strenuous work is required.

At the end of the day, it is up to us all individually to decide what is and what is not correct, and although I state my points with conviction and sincerity, you should always be aware that I'm just a bod with an opinion. What's yours?

PS If nectarines are in season (or not), and they appeal, go for it!

Crazy World News - 11 - China has illegalized reincarnation.

OK, this is not exactly new news, as the article I stumbled upon is dated August 1994, but for sure, it's the first I'm hearing of it.. Apparently, China's communist regime has made it illegal to reincarnate without first seeking government approval. Once more proving just how world Governments can, and do, exercise their corrupt powers to bully, and squander resources on (sometimes) futile efforts of control.

China demands permission be sought before reincarnating

Clearly their reasoning is once more to make things difficult for the Tibetan lamas whose belief system reincarnation is a fundamental core of.. What I don't get is that the law makers themselves are likely nonbelievers, thus clearly the law is a farce and has nothing whatsoever to do with preventing or controlling who or what reincarnates when or where..

It's all about giving the Government legislative power over Tibet's Buddhist practices in an attempt to bring an end to a system that dates back hundreds of years.

I recall, back in the 1980s, I read someplace, possibly it was even a Nostradamus prediction, or one of the many interpretations of his often vague musings, that both the Monarch of England present on the throne at the turn of the 21st century, and the Dalai Lama incarnated at same time period, would be the last of their successions.. The end of an Era for British Monarchists and Tibetan Monks. I can well imagine that this may turn out to be a factual prediction.

This world is changing sooo fast, recent decades have seen rapid advancements made in so many fields, unfortunately though, I do get the impression that humankind is really just not ready for certain things yet. Well meaning creative people release ideas to powers that are not at all well-meaning, and instead of new discoveries and inventions being used for the good of one and all, the initial focus on them revolves around suppression, control and aiding the militia, through new weaponry or new methods of surveillance..

With their population numbering well over 1.3 billion, which I believe is pushing a 5th of the population of the world, and a Government that clearly has no real morals or scruples based on anything humane (mind you, do any?), China is a giant force to be reckoned with.

Probably Curtains For this Guy

Anyhow, sure, not wishing to focus too much on potential doom and gloom, on the brighter side, recent decades have also seen a steady awakening of a certain global subset of people that are able to see through the bullshit and past global government corruption, immoral banking activity, and even those that no longer want to be part of the animal exploitation industry. Numbers are surely growing. And I'm an optimist at heart, that likes to believe that good will overpower evil, and corruption be vanquished by honesty and goodwill, but I am also a realist and understand that things appear very much to be coming to a head.. Rainforest destruction, top soil erosion, ever expanding deserts, widening cities, increased crime, the inevitable decline of oil bringing with it increased prices as commodities reliant on oil become scare and unavoidable food and water shortages.

Now is the time to move out of the cities, ensure you have some land, and grow what you can to weather the worst. I see a light at the end of the tunnel, but suspect things may meanwhile get pretty hairy. Remember we're all here to learn, and one life time is but a brief gnats fart in the turmoilic history of the universe, so do what you can to survive, but don't loose your sanity over it.