I've been mostly a lurker since joining this list a few months ago, and
have enjoyed the info presented here. My nutritional knowledge is limited
enough to keep me from doing much more than reading posts, but this Hitler
thread has gotten very irritating. Statements pointing out that Hitler was
a vegetarian, as proof of anything or rebuttal of anything, do nothing to
serve this nutritional approach at all, IMO. Whatever the reasons for
making that statement, whether its to rebut a "hunters are bloodthirsty"
line or whatever else, only brings the argument down to a level that moves
past reason and into a very subtle name-calling contest.

I've read a couple of fascinating works that theorized that Hitler's
development into an authoritarian monster, and Germany's ready acceptance
of him, was made possible by the ghastly childrearing practices prevalent
in turn-of-the-century Germany. The author did research, backed up her
points, and made a convincing (to me) case. My point is that using Hitler
as a poster boy for any potential hypocrisies of vegetarianism completely
misses many other things at work at the time in early 20th century Germany,
and is just too easy and lazy as an argument for a Paleo diet (and it
sounds like it might be inaccurate as well). Mixing the real science with
sly implications in that way can only serve, IMO, to water down the many
valid arguments for a Paleo diet. Ray, I respectfully hope for the sake of
your own fight to get your message across that you lose that anecdote.

Making pemmican for a big fishing trip...
Sam Johnson