It is surely theoretically correct that man was a mere fruit eater in times gone by, and biologically correct, that he can be it even to-day. Or can the horse-sense of man not conceive, without any proofs and directly, of the fact that man, before becoming a hunter, lived on fruits only? I even maintain that he did live in absolute health, beauty and strength, without pain and grief, just the way the Bible says. Fruit only, the sole "mucus-less" food, is natural. Everything prepared by man or supposedly improved by him is evil. The arguments regarding fruit are scientifically exact; in an apple or a banana, for instance, is everything contained what man needs. Man is so perfect that he can live on one kind of fruit only, at least for quite some time. This, however, need not necessarily be cocoanut (Kabakon). But a self-evident truth preached by nature must not be discarded just because nobody has been able to apply it in practice on account of civilizational considerations. From fruit only one becomes first of all ill, i.e. cleansed; this cleansing process, however, is better to undergo at home and not in the tropics. No man would have ever believed me that it is possible to live without food for 126 days, in which 49 at a stretch, during 14 months. Now I have done it, and yet this truth is not being understood. Hitherto I say and teach only that fruit is the most natural "healing remedy." Whether my calculation is correct will be proven by the next epidemic. I take, however, this opportunity to uncover the reasons why the self-evident is not believed in. When in the previous century somebody talked about telephoning from Berlin to Paris, everybody laughed, because there had never been such a thing. Natural food is not being believed in any more, because almost nobody practices it and, being a man of civilization, cannot easily practice it. It must also be considered that contra-interests fear that the prices of the other, artificial foodstuffs may drop, and others fear that the food-physiology may receive a shock and the physicians become unnecessary. But it is just this fasting and fruit cure which requires very strict observation and instruction--therefore: more doctors and less patients who, however, will gladly pay more if they get well. Thus the social question regarding doctors is solved--assertion already made by me publicly in Zurich several years ago.

Almost all fasting attempts fail on account of the ignorance of the fact that with the beginning of muc usless diet the old mucus is being excreted so much more forcibly until that person is absolutely clean and healthy. Thus the seemingly most healthy person has first to pass through a condition of sickness (cleansing), or to go through an intermediate stage of illness to a higher level of health.

This is the great cliff around which so very few vegetarians have failed to go, discarding the highest truth just like the mass of people is doing. I have proven this here in the "Vegetarische Warte" competently on the basis of experiments and facts, and refuted the greatest objection, that of under-nourishment, by an actual fasting experiment of 49 days with preceding fruit diet. My state of health was only improved by this radical excretion of mucus, disregarding a few unhygienic circumstances during the test. I received numerous letters of appreciation, especially from the educated classes. The mass of the adherents of vegetarianism "mucuses" gaily ahead. Vegetarianism has to show representatives of both sexes who do not differ by anything from Munich beer-stomachs: a consequence of the daily stuffing up with "mucus -food" of all kinds. Contrasting herewith it can only be said that the poisons (so-called by them): meat, alcohol, coffee and tobacco are in the long run comparatively harmless, as long as they are used moderately.

In order to avoid misunderstanding on the part of teetotalers and vegetarians, I must insert here a few explanations. Meat is not a foodstuff but only a stimulant which ferments, decays in the stomach ; the process of decay, however, does not begin in the stomach but at once after the slaughtering. This has already been proven on living persons by Prof. Dr. S. Graham, and I complete this fact by saying that meat acts as a stimulant just by means of these poisons of decay, and therefore is being regarded as a strengthening foodstuff. Or is there anyone who can show me chemico-physiologically that the albumen molecule going through the process of decay is being newly reformed in the stomach and celebrates its resurrection in some muscle of the human body? Exactly like alcohol, the meat acts in the beginning delusively as if stimulating strength and energy, until the entire organism is penetrated by it and the break-down inevitable. All the other stimulants act likewise.

The fundamental evil of all non-vegetaric forms of diet consists always in the overeating of meat, as it is the origin of all the other evils, especially of the craving for alcohol. If fruit is eaten almost exclusively, the eagerness for cup or glass loses itself to chastise himself against it, simply because meat produces the demon thirst. Alcohol is a proven kind of antidote for meat, and the gourmand of the big city, who eats almost nothing but meat, must therefore have wines, Mocha and Havana, in order to at least in some way counteract the heavy meat-poisoning. It is a well-known fact that, after an opulent dinner, one feels decidedly fresher, physically and mentally, if the stimulants, poisonous in themselves, are taken moderately, than to stuff one's self full with the good eating to the very fatigue.

I absolutely declare war on meat and alcohol; through fruit and moderate eating these great evils are radically diminished. But whoever finds it impossible to entirely give up meat and alcohol is, if he takes them moderately, still far ahead of the vegetaric much-eater. The American Fletcher proves this most evidently by his tremendous success, and his secret is explained by my experiments which show that a person becomes most efficient and develops best in his health if he eats as little as possible. Are not the oldest people as a rule the poorest? Have not the greatest discoverers and inventors sprung from poverty, i.e., been little eaters? Were not the greatest of mankind, the prophets, founders of religions, etc., ascetics? Is that culture, to live in Berlin, dining excellently thrice a day, and is that social progress that each working man eats five times a day and then pumps himself full with beer at night? If the sick organism can regenerate by eating nothing, I think the logical consequences is that a healthy organism needs but little food in order to remain healthy, strong and persevering.