Why eating raw meat is anarchist praxis
Eating raw meat is anarchist. This might seem like a far-out take, something you’d find spouted by bizarre quack scientists who also tell you that looking into the sun is good but many people are sleeping on this.
I hear many arguments against eating raw meat, the first one being that it contains salmonella. It is important to remember that salmonella is only really an issue with places which factory farm due to inhumane conditions. Raw poultry which has been processed and handled hygienically should not have salmonella but the issue comes when salmonella which lives in the guts of chickens makes its way onto surfaces or food sources of other animals. So this could be things like intestinal contents being spilt on surfaces, animal defecation, and so on. Raw chicken meat does not give you salmonella, chicken infested with salmonella does and when you remove factors from the equation like factory farming and just generally industrial food production, the percentage of chickens with salmonella will not be an issue anymore.
And because of this, we see food safety organisations using the state to regulate what we can and cannot eat, what restaurants can and cannot serve. By eating this raw meat, the raw meat which is regulated against, you reject civilisation, capitalism, and it’s social codes. It’s as some might call it, ‘based’. Eating raw meat is true anarchist praxis.
Diogenes ate raw meat and lived until the age of 89. If it’s good enough for Diogenes, it is good enough for me. It also further reinforces the argument that the problem with bacteria in food is simply solved by taking the person out of a centralised society (Ancient Greece was centralised but nowhere as centralised as the modern industrial world is).
The only two genuine benefits of eating cooked meat is that it kills parasites (which can be avoided) and that it increases the amount of energy gained from eating the foods. Food tasting better is not a genuine benefit of cooking raw food as that is utterly subjective with no basis in any science.
In conclusion, if you disagree with anything I’ve said, you’re a dumbass and factually wrong. I hope you can reread this essay and maybe take something away from it.