On The Livin’ La Vida Low Carb Show … And Two Others

Happy 2019.  I hope you all had a pleasant end-of-the-year break.  I spent much of my break relaxing, watching football and nipping at the bottle of single-malt Irish whiskey I received from my in-laws.  Since I live much of my life in slightly-too-busy mode, I was happy to decompress for a while.  Now I’m ready to return to normal life and normal dietary habits.

While I was on vacation, a few podcast interviews I’d recorded earlier were released:

On The Livin’ La Vida Low-Carb Show with Jimmy Moore, we of course talked about the Fat Head Kids film, and the book as well.

Waaaay back in December, I was a guest on The Keto Lifestyle podcast with Jessica Tye.  Jessica has kids herself, so diet and health for youngsters is a topic near and dear to her heart.

Also back in December, I was a guest on The Fitness Confidential podcast with Vinnie Tortorich.  Vinnie just finished post-production on his upcoming documentary Fat, so he hadn’t yet seen Fat Head Kids when we conducted the interview.  (I’ve lived through post-production twice now.  It’s a pedal-to-the-metal process.)  But as always, talking with Vinnie was way big fun.  He’s a take-no-prisoners sort of guy.




A Christmas Gift To Me … Letter From A Viewer

This is probably my last post of 2018, barring some pressing announcement. Consider it a little Christmas present to me from a reader. It’s another example of why the trolls and the haters (and the rogue Wikipedia editors who want to cleanse Fat Head from the historical record) just don’t matter to me. They never have.

Someone will leave a venomous one-star review of Fat Head on YouTube and, I suppose, think I’m going to be psychologically wounded. Hardly. I don’t read the reviews, negative or positive. (My daughter Sara sometimes reads the one-star reviews and laughs out loud.) When I receive an email from a hater, I laugh it off. I simply don’t care … because of emails like this one:


Hi Mr. Naughton,

Several years ago I encountered Fat Head the Movie and watched it, thinking I would get an amusing counterpunch to the silly “Supersize Me” documentary. I got that, thanks to you.

But then there came a scene that takes place inside the human body–the scene where you explain the actual mechanics responsible for fat storage. That scene changed my perspective forever.

Your documentary sent me on a journey to read some of the books you recommended, after which point I finally discovered a diet I could stick to. I enjoy the diet with minimal pain, but with a profoundly healthy effect on my waistline. That’s also thanks to you.

I recently sat down to watch your speech Diet, Health, and the Wisdom of Crowds on YouTube and it hit me: if it wasn’t for you taking the time to explain how insulin works–a scene that opened my eyes to a completely new universe in which weight loss was possible–I would probably still be struggling to eat low-calorie, low-fat, and hitting my head against a wall.

So I had to send you an email and tell you: I’m currently in the best shape of my life. I’m not counting calories, but I am clipping new notches in my belt. And I can trace my newfound fitness back to that moment in your documentary, and not a moment after it or a moment before it. You’re the one who opened my eyes to the truth about fat and carbohydrates that changed the possibilities for me forever.

Thank you.



Thank you, Dan. When I began working on Fat Head, I also expected it to be an amusing counter-punch to Super Size Me, and not much more. But the film kept evolving as I began to understand just how screwy the standard dietary advice is. I thought that advice deserved a counter-punch as well. I hoped people would be amused and learn a few things. I never expected to receive emails like yours, but they’ve been showing up since 2009. And every one of them is a gift.

So thank you – all of you. Happy holidays to you and yours, and have a fabulous 2019. I’ll see you in January.


Follow-Up On The Weenie Wiki Editor

      37 Comments on Follow-Up On The Weenie Wiki Editor

Quite a bit has happened since Fat Head was tagged for deletion yesterday. Let me start with the most important development: Sceptic from Britain (later known as MatthewManchester1994 and then as Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434), the editor who was obviously targeting low-carb advocates  — and pretty much anyone who disputes the lipid hypothesis – is apparently gone now.

Let’s review some examples of what made this editor so … uh … special. In addition to targeting Dr. Uffe Ravnskov and Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt for deletion (which hasn’t yet happened and may not) he targeted Dr. Richard Feinman for deletion:

The same week, he targeted Dana Carpender for deletion – which happened:

She was deleted because … uh … why, exactly? Unreliable information? As if it’s difficult to determine whether or not she is indeed a real person who has written several popular books.

The same week, our weenie wiki editor also targeted Jimmy Moore for deletion – which happened:

Not notable. Yes, a guy with several best-selling books – a fact easily confirmed, and which someone else in the thread did confirm. Ah, but he’s a “fringe proponent of low-carb dieting.” This editor of course decided anyone associated with low-carb dieting is “fringe.”

For another example, I pulled some text from a discussion on Tim Noakes. Sceptic from Britain kept arguing that any article critical of Noakes was relevant, while any article supportive was not relevant. Another editor suggested removing an article that recounted the accusations against Noakes but didn’t mention he was acquitted twice of all charges. Here’s our buddy Sceptic from Britain replying:

Based on your editing history you are here on Wikipedia to peddle LCHF quackery. There is no reason to remove that source from the article. The medical community does not agree with Noakes’ crazy dieting ideas. [[User:Skeptic from Britain|Skeptic from Britain]] ([[User talk:Skeptic from Britain|talk]]) 00:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

LCHF quackery … yes, this is the kind of objective editor who should be deciding what goes and what stays in Wikipedia.

A few days after I wrote a post about how the weenie wiki editor had targeted Kendrick, he tagged Fat Head for deletion – after changing his handle to MatthewManchester1994. We could hardly ask for clearer evidence that his editorial decisions were based on his personal bias.

Then he changed his handle again. Then he apparently quit altogether. I pulled this directly from a Wikipedia page:

Unfortunately regarding the Malcolm Kendrick thing I was doxxed by some of his associates such as Tom Naughton, Jimmy Moore etc and these people including Kendrick have posted my real life name etc on various social media platforms and low-carb websites. Jimmy Wales spoke to some of these people via twitter but they ended up insulting him. They are not to be reasoned with! I will leave them to their irrational conspiracy theories. I will be leaving Wikipedia. I have requested a courtesy blanking of my username. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

He’s not only biased, he has a problem with the truth. Go check my posts. I never mentioned his name. Malcolm Kendrick also never called him by name, only by initials. Yes, someone in comments linked to an Instagram profile and claimed the profile was for Sceptic From Britain, but I replied by asking how he knew (never got an answer) and never mentioned the name myself.

Posting his real name on various social media platforms? I did no such thing. Neither did Kendrick.

EDIT: I received an email from the person identified in the comment.  He’s actually a fan of Fat Head and of low-carb diets.  He is not Sceptic From Britain and was apparently targeted himself as some form of cyber revenge.  The comment has been removed.  I also heard from someone claiming to be the actual Sceptic From Britain, who also said the name in the comments was incorrect. 

I then heard from yet another person naming still someone else as Sceptic From Britain.  There’s clearly some cyber-wars stuff going on here, with one or more people trying to use blogs like this one as weapons.  Based on that, I’m removing other sections of this post.  Whatever real-person names may have seen in comments earlier, kindly forget them.

I’ve been tweeting about this whole issue for a couple of days, which drew the attention of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. His first several replies were long explanations of Wikipedia policies, the apparent message being that nothing was wrong, no violations of policy, no biases in tagging for deletion, move along, folks, nothing here to see. That ticked me off, because the editor’s bias could hardly be more obvious.  That’s why in my previous post, I said Wales was making a fool of himself on Twitter defending this nonsense.

I need to take back the insult now, apologize to Wales, and give credit where credit is due. In a couple of Twitter exchanges, I pointed that Fat Head was targeted for deletion right after I wrote about Kendrick. I asked if he truly believed this editor was making objective decisions, which seemed highly unlikely.

He replied that he didn’t know what Fat Head is and was unaware of it being targeted for deletion. He then sent me a private message asking for more information. I sent links demonstrating who the editor had targeted, how he’d changed his handle twice in a matter of days while continuing the targeting, etc.

Wales responded that such behavior was against policy and could lead to an editor being banned.  He said he’d look into the matter.

So while it took some time for him to be convinced there was an actual problem, he apparently did look into it and take action. In the discussion page for the proposed deletion of Fat Head, a user with the handle Jimbo Wales wrote this [bold emphasis mine]:

Strong keep – As others have noted, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer is a serial name changer and POV pusher who has now apparently left the project. A quick research of the film reveals that in addition to the sources that User:Strikerforce rightly says are enough to ‘barely’ pass notability, I found an article at Motley Fool and this one at Vulture. It is not a major film to be sure, but there seems to be no reason for deletion other than the POV pushing of the proposer.

Problem recognized, identified and solved. Apparently, anyway. I haven’t seen a final decision on deletion, but I suspect Jimbo Wales has some influence.

So if I was wrong about the guy, I’m happy to be wrong.


‘Fat Head’ Targeted For Deletion By The Weenie At Wikipedia

Well, heck, I’m always proud to be included in the same company as Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.

Let’s review the chronology here: On December 3rd, Kendrick announced on his blog that he’d been slated for deletion from Wikipedia. (He’s since been deleted.) The editor who made that decision used the handle Sceptic From Britain. Lots of people were speculating that Spectic From Britain was a shill for Big Food.

Given who he had targeted – Kendrick, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt, etc. – Big Food didn’t strike me as the likely culprit. In my December 13th post, I wrote this:

I have my own two-legged theory: 1) Skeptic from Britain is a disciple of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet, and 2) Wikipedia has been taken over by social-justice warriors.

And later in the post …

I’m sure the people who run Big Food aren’t fans of Kendrick, Ravnskov or Eenfeldt. But based on what I’ve witnessed on social media, the people who really can’t stand anyone who says saturated fats and cholesterol are good for you are the SJW/Plant-Based Diet crowd. By gosh, if you tell people meat and eggs are part of a healthy diet, you’re ruining the planet, promoting inequality, and possibly supporting the repressive imperial patriarchy or whatever.

Nailed it. Someone identified Sceptic From Britain. An online profile listed him as a naturalist and vegetarian. (He also appears to be about 12 years old.)

EDIT: Ignore that profile.  I’ve received emails from the person profiled, from someone else claiming to the real Sceptic From Britain, and from a third person claiming to have proof that yet another person is the real Sceptic From Britain.  Bottom line:  we’ve got a weird case of cyber revenge going on in this whole matter, and any name mentioned is likely to be false.

Kendrick wrote this in his latest blog post on the matter:

I wrote the book “Doctoring Data” to try and shine some light on the methods used to distort and manipulate data. I try, as best as I can, to follow the scientific method. That includes discussion and debate, to test ones ideas in the furnace of sustained attacks.

However, if you try to do this, the forces of darkness come after you, and they come hard. Especially if ever dare to suggest that animal fats, saturated fats, are not in the least harmful. At which point you waken the vegan beast, and this beast is not the least interested in science, or the scientific method, or discussion or debate.

It has one aim, and that is to silence anyone, anywhere, who dares to question the vegan philosophy.

Anyone with a half a brain can see that’s exactly what’s going on with this particular editor. And yet Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has insisted Kendrick’s deletion was all about the quality of the sourcing. Nothing to do with Kendrick’s positions on the lipid hypothesis, ya see. Same goes for Ravnskov and Eenfeldt. Absolutely nothing to do with the editor’s anti-meat zealotry, ya see. It’s all about the quality of the sourcing. Purely a coincidence that this particular editor keeps identifying sourcing problems with articles about people who say animal fats won’t kill you.

Wales is currently making a fool of himself on Twitter by continuing to argue that position, even after people have linked to Wikipedia articles about vegetarian doctors that aren’t tagged for deletion, despite no differences in that all-important quality of the sourcing.

It’s a perfect example of the phenomenon described in the wonderful book Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): some people, after taking a public position, simply cannot change their minds no matter how obvious it becomes that they got it wrong. We have a clear case of a vegan-zealot editor creating a hit list, but Wales refuses to see it.

The smart move at this point would be to re-examine the editor’s decisions, then announce that upon further review, the editor was applying a personal bias, not a consistent standard.  But that would require a bit of humility.  I don’t pay attention to Mr. Wales, but according to people who do, humility is not a trait that afflicts him.  Based on his tweets regarding this issue, I’m inclined to agree.

But circling back to the chronology … I wrote my post on December 13th. By some strange coincidence, the Wikipedia entry for Fat Head was then tagged for deletion on December 17th. (It has to be a coincidence, because Jimmy Wales has assured us there’s no bias or targeting going on.)

Yes, after several years of Fat Head existing in the online pages of Wikipedia, an editor just happened to discover problems that are so severe, the entry needs to be deleted. Again, pure coincidence. No bias or targeting going on here, no siree. And we know it’s not bias, because the editor who tagged Fat Head for deletion isn’t Sceptic From Britain; it’s an editor whose handle is MatthewManchester1994.

Except … someone pointed me to a Wikipedia page that (at the time, anyway) displayed this text:

Goodness, how strange. I write a post criticizing Sceptic From Britain for deleting Kendrick, and a few days later, the same editor changes his handle and then targets Fat Head for deletion. But there’s no bias or targeting going on here. Just ask Jimmy Wales. He’ll explain it to you on Twitter.

The story gets stranger still. As of this writing, the user profile for MatthewManchester1994 tells us this:

15:07, 20 December 2018 Céréales Killer (talk | contribs) renamed user MatthewManchester1994 (4672 edits) to Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 (per request)

The editor has requested his handle be renamed twice in five days. Perhaps he only feels comfortable tagging a dozen or so people and films for deletion using each handle.

As I’ve said before, I don’t give a hoot whether Fat Head is listed in Wikipedia or not. But I found the reasons for targeting it for deletion amusing. Here’s a quote from our completely unbiased editor, MatthewManchester1994 (back in the five-day stretch when he used that handle):

Fat Head is a non-notable fringe conspiracy theory documentary that doubts scientific evidence for the lipid hypothesis. I am not seeing any evidence this documentary is notable, it advertises itself as a science documentary but no scientists have reviewed it. Tom Naughton [1] directed the film but he is not notable either (he has not directed anything else), the article reads like a promotion piece.

The definition of “notable” can mean pretty much whatever Wikipedia decides it means, of course. I believe millions of views around the world (more than 760,000 on YouTube alone) should count for something, but unlike Wikipedia’s editor, I may be biased. Perhaps I’ll ask Jimmy Wales to define bias for me and clear things up.

As for being a “fringe conspiracy” documentary, well, that’s the excuse we’ve seen from Sceptic From Britain … I mean, MatthewManchester1994 … I mean, Vanisheduser3334743743i43i434 for all these deletions. He’s not bending Wikipedia to his vegan-zealot agenda, you understand. No, he’s just protecting the site from fringe conspiracies.

Funny thing, though … other vegan zealots have also called Fat Head a “conspiracy” film.  But not one of them has ever cited a fact I got wrong.  I showed news footage of the McGovern committee at work.  The advice put out by the USDA is a matter of public record.  I mentioned that nine out of 10 members of the Cholesterol Education Campaign committee had financial arrangements with statin-makers, which again is a matter of public record. I quoted a director of the Framingham study on how the results don’t support the lipid hypothesis — again, a matter of public record.  I named large studies in which the lipid hypothesis failed — all of them in the public record.

If I’d twisted facts and timelines around, Michael Moore style, I could see calling Fat Head a conspiracy film.  But since nobody has ever offered proof that I made statements that aren’t true or changed the chronology in which events happened, the definition of “conspiracy film” seems to be that I don’t agree with the vegan-zealot crowd that animal fats are deadly.

As proof that I promote “fringe conspiracies,” MatthewManchester1994 mentioned my post titled Another Big Fat (and old) Fail For The Lipid Hypothesis. This is where the absurdity of vegan (ahem) “logic” reaches a whole new level.

That particular post is about an old study conducted (but never published) by Ancel Keys. I quote from a Washington Post article, which in turn quotes from the British Medical Journal that examined the study data. Here’s what the Post wrote:

It was one of the largest, most rigorous experiments ever conducted on an important diet question: How do fatty foods affect our health? Yet it took more than 40 years — that is, until today — for a clear picture of the results to reach the public.

The story begins in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when researchers in Minnesota engaged thousands of institutionalized mental patients to compare the effects of two diets. One group of patients was fed a diet intended to lower blood cholesterol and reduce heart disease. It contained less saturated fat, less cholesterol and more vegetable oil. The other group was fed a more typical American diet.

Just as researchers expected, the special diet reduced blood cholesterol in patients.

Today, the principles of that special diet — less saturated fat, more vegetable oils — are recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the government’s official diet advice book.

Yet the fuller accounting of the Minnesota data indicates that the advice is, at best, unsupported by the massive trial. In fact, it appears to show just the opposite: Patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually suffered more heart-related deaths than those who did not.

So to recap: The British Medical Journal finally publishes data from a large, rigorous trial in which the lipid hypothesis failed miserably – so miserably that people who switched to vegetable oils actually had more heart attacks, despite lowering their cholesterol. The Washington Post then reports on that study. So far, so good.

But when I write a post about the same study, quoting from the Washington Post, it’s proof that I promote fringe conspiracies … and therefore Fat Head should be deleted.

Kendrick put it perfectly: …you waken the vegan beast, and this beast is not the least interested in science, or the scientific method, or discussion or debate.

As if to prove the point, a vegan nut-job left this comment on Kendrick’s blog:

[Sceptic] is an absolute legend for deleting various low-carb cranks from Wikipedia, I fully support him and we will utilize other wikis to debunk LCHF nonsense.

Yes, if you delete information about people who disagree with you instead of debating them, that makes you a hero.

But there’s no bias or agenda going on here. It’s strictly about the quality of the sourcing. Just ask Jimmy Wales. He’ll explain it to you on Twitter.

And then you can laugh your ass off.




Review: EZ Keto 123

      9 Comments on Review: EZ Keto 123

Now that I’m no longer grinding away on a speech or film project, I pulled a couple of books on ketogenic diets off my bookshelf and read them. One of them was EZ Keto 123 by Jamie Caporosso. As the title suggests, it’s a quick-and-easy introduction to ketogenic diets.

I like books that keep it simple. I also like books that take me on a deep-dive once a subject has caught my interest, but I like to get started with something simple. That’s why when people ask me to suggest a book on economics, I always mention Henry Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson. You can read the whole thing in an afternoon. If you find you enjoyed the appetizer, you can move on to books by Thomas Sowell for the seven-course meal.

EZ Keto 123 is just 61 pages, and it definitely passes what I call my “Aunt Martha” test: your Aunt Martha could read the book and understand it without having to grab a medical dictionary or biology textbook. In fact, if your Aunt Martha (or co-worker Martha) has noticed you’re slimmer and healthier since switching to ketogenic diet and wants to know what you eat and why the diet works, this the book to give her as a gift.

The first few pages recount Caporosso’s own discovery of how a ketogenic diet improved his weight and health. Despite being a competitive powerlifter and working out like a fiend, he ballooned up to 250 pounds some years ago because of his eat anything not nailed down diet. After a stern warning from his doctor, Caporosso tried losing weight on the diet most of us have tried at least once, if not several times — low-fat, low-calorie, low-satisfaction, high frustration.

After a sympathetic friend handed him a copy of Neanderthin by Ray Audette, he began taking a serious look at the paleo diet, then paleo versions of the ketogenic diet. And the rest is history. He found that a ketogenic diet allowed him to lose the fat while continuing to train hard with weights and recover more quickly than before. (If you’ve heard that people can’t build or maintain muscle mass on a ketogenic diet, I’d suggest you watch the video below. That’s Caporosso.)

Chapter One of EZ Keto 123 is the how-to. You’ll learn about macronutrients and how to adjust them to enter ketosis, of course, but there’s also some good advice about weight loss. And when I say good advice, I mean Caporosso doesn’t make any too-good-to-be-true claims about how you can stuff yourself with all the fat you want and still lose weight. He provides some formulas for calculating your basal metabolic rate (BMR) and also mentions some apps that will do the calculations for you. Using the example of a woman who burns around 1,551 calories per day, he writes this:

The next step is to take a slight deficit from her daily caloric needs. I’ve been successful with the range of 5-10%. What that usually does is give you some nice, slow and steady weight loss, and doesn’t really push your body into a “starvation preservation” mod where it may start slowing your metabolism down because it thinks you are in a famine situation.

Bingo. Slow and steady wins the race. After calculating how much the fictional woman should be eating in a day, Caporosso demonstrates how she can put together meals that fit the ketogenic ratio. In addition to writing the book, Caporosso produced an app for iPhone and Android called KetoCheck that takes the guesswork out of it. Just enter the foods and portion sizes for what you’re eating.

Chapter Two is about dialing it in. There’s a section on using ketone strips, ketone meters and ketone breath strips, tips on avoiding the “keto flu,” and advice on overcoming weight-loss stalls. One example: for some people, too much dairy food causes a stall, even if their food ratios are ketogenic.

Chapter Three consists of common questions and answers. I like this one:

What if I don’t want to do all that math and macro counting? Then don’t. If you want, throw all the calculations to the wind. You could possibly be very successful if every time you were hungry, you just ate meat and green veggies. Unless I’m training for a specific competition, i.e. powerlifting or CrossFit, this is pretty much how I eat.

I like this one too:

Is a ketogenic diet for everyone? No, of course not. No single diet is right for everyone …. A standard paleo diet with a scheduled treat meal may be more realistic for your lifestyle. You can always circle back around and try it again.

The final section includes links to resources and even a few recipes. Quite a lot of information for a 61-page book.

I know Christmas is only a week away, but if you have friends or relatives who have expressed an interest in ketogenic diets but haven’t quite pulled the trigger, this quick-and-easy book would make a nice addition to those presents sitting under the tree. I’d suggest opening it after the pumpkin pie is gone, however.





The Anointed And Free Speech, Part Six

      86 Comments on The Anointed And Free Speech, Part Six

Well, I hadn’t planned another post on The Anointed and free speech, but they keep making it topical.

In case you haven’t already heard, someone at Wikipedia decided to make Dr. Malcolm Kendrick disappear … kind of like in the old Soviet Union when politicians no longer in favor simply disappeared from official photographs of the country’s glorious history. (And that was before Photoshop, which took some talent.)

Dr. Kendrick announced his disappearance on his blog:

I thought I should tell you that I am about to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone sent me a message to this effect. It seems that someone from Manchester entitled User:Skeptic from Britain has decided that I am a quack and my presence should be removed from the historical record.

To be frank, I am not entirely bothered if I no longer appear on Wikipedia, but I am increasingly pissed off that self-styled anonymous ‘experts’ can do this sort of thing without making it explicit why they are doing it, what their motives are, and if they have any disclosure of interest.

His reasons for trying to get rid of me are the following:

“Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues(sic) against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)”

Like Kendrick, I don’t care all that much about Wikipedia. Years ago, someone who obviously doesn’t like me or Fat Head created an entry about the film. Yawn. I didn’t care. Someone else later updated the entry to be more balanced. I still don’t care. I’m pretty sure sales of the film have zip to do with Wikipedia either way.

But also like Kendrick, I’m pissed about the urge to stifle dissenting opinions. And it’s not just Kendrick slated to be removed from the historical record. If you check the entries for Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt and Dr. Uffe Ravnskov (assuming you do it quickly), you’ll see the message This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia’s deletion policy. Ravnskov’s deletion notice explains that This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view.

Hmmm, now why would someone at Wikipedia want to remove Ravnskov, Kendrick and Eenfeldt just because their ideas are considered “fringe”? Why not simply present their ideas along with criticisms of those ideas and let people decide for themselves? I’ll answer that by quoting from a previous post:

The Anointed aren’t big fans of freedom of speech or of concepts like The Marketplace of Ideas or The Wisdom of Crowds. Two of their most dearly-held beliefs are:

1. They are very, very smart.
2. The rest of us aren’t very, very smart and are often quite stupid.

Consequently, The Anointed don’t view wide-open debate and discussion as opportunities for the best ideas to be discovered and bubble up to the top. They view them as opportunities for the great unwashed masses with their inferior intellects to be fooled and led astray.

One way or another, The Anointed believe they must coerce people who disagree with them into shutting the hell up.

Or just disappearing altogether, at least from the Wikipedia universe.

A few people I follow on Twitter have speculated that Skeptic from Britain is working for Big Food. Maybe. But I have my own two-legged theory: 1) Skeptic from Britain is a disciple of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet, and 2) Wikipedia has been taken over by social-justice warriors.

As the book SJWs Always Lie reminds us, any organization that doesn’t make a concerted effort to stick to its primary mission and avoid an SJW takeover is a candidate for being invaded by SJWs. Once they’re in control, the SJWs steer the organization towards promoting the “correct” ideas and agendas – even if that means harming the organization’s supposed primary mission.

Universities are, unfortunately, a perfect example these days. Read their mission statements, and you’ll see lofty language about a commitment to inquiry, debate, the free exchange of ideas, etc. In reality, college campuses have become ground zero for speech codes and mob protests to shut down (sometimes successfully) speakers the SJWs find offensive. These are not people who believe in a marketplace of ideas.

Earlier this week, a comedian tweeted part of a contract he received from a university where he was slated to perform:

By signing this contract, you are agreeing to our no tolerance policy with regards to racism, sexism, classism, ageism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia or anti-religion and anti-atheism. All topics must be presented in a way that is respectful and kind.

Yeah, that’s what makes comedy great: staying within carefully crafted guidelines designed to make sure absolutely nobody’s feelings get hurt. Can you think of a single comedian who makes you laugh out loud whose act wouldn’t violate that contract? My act was family-friendly by design, but since I made jokes about my parents getting older (which they loved), I’d fail the “ageism” test for sure.  I had a whole bit on dealing with stupid people that would probably fail the “ableism” rule.

The point is, this contract is typical of what we’re seeing in universities – the supposed centers of inquiry and free expression. And yet the SJWs have turned campuses into do not dare offend us! zones. (Historical footnote: the first big campus protests in the 1960s weren’t about Vietnam. They were about free speech. Oh, the irony.)

As for the connection between SJWs and disciples of The Church of the Holy Plant-Based Diet, I covered that in this post about Walter Willett becoming the co-chair of an organization called The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health. As a reminder, here are some quotes from the organization’s web site explaining why people need to eat less meat:

Food production is notoriously energy-intensive. Reducing the amount of energy used in developed countries’ food systems is an important step to lower GHG emissions and environmental impact.

Food production contributes around a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. By eating limited amounts of meat or none at all we can reduce methane emissions and improve our diets.

Reducing inequalities between countries and within societies themselves will require a huge boost for those at the bottom of the ladder.

There is also a reverse relationship between food and peace, justice, and strong institutions: A lack of these can also be a root cause of dysfunctional food systems, hunger and poor nutrition. Getting it right on food can both depend on this goal, and strengthen its attainment.

This organization isn’t dedicated to making people healthy.  It’s dedicated to pushing the SJW agenda — and telling us to stop eating meat is part of that agenda.

Yes, I’m sure the people who run Big Food aren’t fans of Kendrick, Ravnskov or Eenfeldt. But based on what I’ve witnessed on social media, the people who really can’t stand anyone who says saturated fats and cholesterol are good for you are the SJW/Plant-Based Diet crowd. By gosh, if you tell people meat and eggs are part of a healthy diet, you’re ruining the planet, promoting inequality, and possibly supporting the repressive imperial patriarchy or whatever.

And so you must be removed from the historical record. Sorry, comrade, but it’s for the good of everyone.

By the way, when I first opened Wikipedia, I was presented with a plea to make a donation to preserve the organization’s independence. Yeah, that’ll happen. Because nothing prompts me to fork over a few bucks like seeing “fringe” ideas stifled.

Based on comments here and on Twitter, I see I wasn’t clear about which posts are for which series, which is a bit confusing because of long gaps between the posts on free speech.

The Anointed And Free Speech is one series, and The Anointed, The Experts, and Knowledge is another. Here are links to both series of posts:

The Anointed and Free Speech, Part One

The Anointed and Free Speech, Part Two

The Anointed and Free Speech, Part Three

The Anointed and Free Speech, Part Four

The Anointed And Free Speech, Part Five

The Anointed And Free Speech, Part Six (this post)

The Anointed, The Experts, And Knowledge … Part One

The Anointed, The Experts, And Knowledge … Part Two

The Anointed, The Experts, And Knowledge … Part Three

The Anointed, The Experts, And Knowledge … Part Four