Counter-Currents
4,436 words
Jef Costello’s recent articles concerning the “Carnivore Diet” inspired me to ponder a subject that I had neglected for some time: the ethics and politics of diet.
As a student of ecological thought, particularly from a Rightist or traditionalist perspective, I am well-acquainted with the arguments concerning veganism, hunting, factory farming, and so forth. But after a flurry of youthful idealism, I mostly set these considerations aside and settled into a fairly comfortable compromise with the status quo. However, Mr. Costello’s articles have led me to reconsider these subjects from the perspective of the True Right.
My use of “ecofascist” in the title is somewhat ironic. As I have described before, “ecofascism” is a pejorative term, invariably applied to any Rightist approach to ecology which rejects the egalitarian premises of the contemporary green movement. A genuine “ecology viewed from the Right,” which promotes an understanding of the natural world based upon order, hierarchy, and differentiation, is far more nuanced — and possesses a longer pedigree — than its critics are typically willing to admit. However, having discussed this at length elsewhere, I will not go into much detail here.
Mr. Costello’s articles show that the conflicts between vegans and adherents of the paleo or carnivore diets are strongly related to their politics. Indeed, there are few issues that bring out the glaring contrast between Left and Right ecology more than the question of “animal rights” and meat consumption. In the following essay, I will examine these different perspectives and consider what outlook is most appropriate from the perspective of the ecologically-informed Right.
The Vegan Left
People become vegans for many reasons. Some simply dislike meat, while others believe veganism will improve their health. Some people want to dissociate themselves from the ecologically destructive and unsustainable practices of factory farming and meat consumptions. Others find the needless slaughter of living beings to be morally repugnant. The former two points will not be addressed in this essay, as I cannot really argue against personal taste, and the supposed health benefits (or lack thereof) of veganism have been suitably addressed by Mr. Costello. I will rather consider the question of sentience and the ecological impact of meat consumption, as these have the greatest bearing on ecological politics.
For many vegans, particularly those of the Left, the primary motivation for veganism is a desire to minimize suffering. Animals are sentient beings, capable of pleasure, pain, and fear, and their needless slaughter is therefore unconscionable. This particularly applies to the most egregiously cruel practices of factory farming, vivisection, the fur trade, and animal experimentation; vegans oppose hunting and other uses of animals in sport or entertainment as well.
There is a small distinction to be made concerning the intellectual foundations of this outlook. Some animal liberation theorists such as Peter Singer base their arguments on a utilitarian appreciation of the sentience of certain animals — their ability to feel pleasure and pain. Other thinkers like Tom Regan, more influenced by the Kantian liberal tradition, actually impute certain rights to the higher mammals. Notably, both approaches are informed by Enlightenment philosophies focused upon individual rights or happiness, rather than a holistic assessment of social or ecosystemic health. Despite these minor differences, they are therefore functionally identical in practice.
In short, for the Left, animal liberation is simply a natural extension of the egalitarian ideal, the “next frontier” in the expanding circle of rights. Animal liberation activists therefore view themselves as a contemporary iteration of the Underground Railroad, the French Resistance, or the civil rights movement.
Animal Liberation Front activists, ca. 1970
Few people, I think, would deny that most animals eaten by mankind are capable of feeling pleasure and pain, as well as a range of other emotions. Indeed, it is likely that they are capable of experiencing far more than humans are currently able to appreciate. Nevertheless, there are notable flaws in the animal liberationist/rights approach, which have important ramifications for how we ought to evaluate veganism.
For one, the focus on sentience creates a hierarchy of beings in which the “higher mammals” — those most capable of feeling pleasure and pain — take precedence over others. However, this fails to take into account the overall functioning of the ecosystem. A more holistic environmental outlook, such as Aldo Leopold’s “Land Ethic,” would prioritize the integrity and wellbeing of the biotic community as a whole. From this perspective, species of animals that are critical in the economy of nature — such as honey bees — would receive greater moral attention than psychologically more complex ones like rabbits, which are plentiful, globally distributed, and reproductively efficient. [1] Thus, in the event of a conflict between species (for instance, if wild rabbits were overbreeding to the point of destroying an endangered species of plant), priority would be given to the more ecologically critical and/or rarer species, rather than the most sentient. For the liberal or utilitarian thinker, the situation would be reversed. The rights of the most sentient being would take precedence, and abstract entities like “species” or “ecosystems” would have no consideration beyond their utility to individuals. Needless to say, these Leftist approaches also provide no moral consideration to entities like mountains, creeks, or landscapes.
The approach of animal liberation and animal rights theorists also fails to draw a distinction between wild and domesticated animals. While animal rights activists tend to focus more exclusively on livestock and pets, the holistic (and accordingly more Rightist) land ethic focuses mostly on wildlife. The reason for this is that, while obviously possessing a level of sentience appropriate to a complex mammal, the domesticated cow or pig is a human artifact whose influence on wild communities is almost wholly negative. According to J. Baird Callicott, such creatures “constitute yet another mode of extension of the works of man into the ecosystem.” Therefore, from the perspective of land ethic, “a herd of cattle, sheep, or pigs is as much or more of a ruinous blight on the landscape as a fleet of four-wheel-drive off-road vehicles.” [2]
Ultimately, ethical veganism of the Leftist variety is based upon an ethical postulate that pain is evil. This feature of Leftism, and modernity in general, was noted by Nietzsche a century and a half ago: “You want, if possible — and there is no more insane ‘if possible’ — to abolish suffering.” [3] However, from the perspective of the Right, pain and suffering are necessary and, to some extent, desirable features of existence. Pain not only serves an important function in a healthy nervous system, but in humankind may also spur a man into a higher level of development. In short, the desire of the Leftist vegan to abjure meat consumption because of the suffering it entails betrays a world-denying, life-loathing philosophy. As Callicott writes, “To live is to be anxious about life, to feel pain and pleasure in fitting measure, and sooner or later to die. This is the way the system works. If nature as a whole is good, then pain and death are also good.” [4]
Taken to its logical extreme, this desire to shield animals from suffering and death would entail an abolition of carnivorous animals, whose behavior — from the perspective of animal rights — would mark them as merciless, wanton, and cruel serial murderers. Predators such as wolves and cougars would therefore have to be exterminated, incarcerated, or otherwise rendered innocuous in order to defend the rights of other animals. Though this sounds ridiculous, some theorists have actually discussed purging the Earth of carnivores in order to create a morally more perfect world.
Thus, while ostensibly devoted to a rejection of anthropocentrism, in which humans are seen as the pinnacle of creation, the animal liberationists end up imposing his all-too-human morality on nature. The only way to eliminate animal suffering would be to take away their wildness altogether. The end result would be the domestication of the biosphere — remade according to the Left’s design.
In short, the major flaw in ethical veganism is the assumption that a life can be lived free of guilt, i.e., free of the necessity of sacrifice. From this perspective, harming and consuming animals is immoral because they are sentient and therefore capable of feeling pain. Vegans apparently believe that this does not apply to plant matter. However, as Joseph Campbell pointed out — as quoted in Mr. Costello’s article — this may just be ignorance on our part: perhaps we are simply “too insensitive to hear the plant scream.”
All life depends upon sacrifice and killing. The exception, ironically, is the life of plants themselves, who obtain their energy directly from the sun and are thus spared the burden of killing to survive. From the vegan perspective, therefore, the plant is the most spiritually perfect organism on Earth. Since plants serve directly or indirectly as the sustenance for all beings higher in the food chain, it could be argued that life itself is founded upon the ceaseless, unrepentant slaughter of Earth’s purest beings.
But it doesn’t stop there. Animal life is sustained by plants, and plant life is sustained by the sun. The sun provides energy to our solar system only by the ceaseless sacrifice of its vital spirit in the form of hydrogen; once depleted, the sun will expand to engulf the solar system before collapsing into a dwarf star and then dying altogether. Life on Earth is therefore dependent upon the ongoing and total sacrifice of the sun itself (making the sun’s traditional regal and religious significance that much more poignant).
Sacrifice of a pig in ancient Greece c. 510–500 BC, from the Louvre collection.
Life is sacrifice. This perspective on existence obviously rejects the wholly benign vision of “mother nature” promoted by some of the less thoughtful environmentalists. However, this is not merely another version of the atheistic, amoral “nature red in tooth and claw” depicted by Social Darwinists. It is, rather, the traditional understanding of existence itself as a sacrificial act. As Alain Danielou describes the outlook of the ancient Indo-Europeans:
The universe appeared to the Vedic Aryan as a constant ritual of sacrifice. The strange destiny which compels every living thing to kill, to devour other things so as to exist, struck him with awe and wonder… We cannot live without taking part in the cosmic ritual either as instruments or as victims. Yet that part is positive only when we do it consciously and with the proper knowledge of forms and utterances. Through the voluntary ritual of sacrifice man takes his place in the cosmic symphony as an equal. The main purpose of his existence is the performance of this ritual. [5]
The fact that the notion of sacrifice is so recurrent in human culture shows that it is a perennial mystery of earthly existence. It is necessary for some things to die in order that others might live. This unpalatable feature of human existence is rejected by the Left, and this colors their typical approach to diet as well as other areas of human concern.
The Vegan Right
As Mr. Costello points out, veganism is nowadays strongly associated with the Left, and its opponents (and meat-eaters in general) are often castigated as “reactionaries” or “neo-Nazis.” It is ironic, of course, that the Carnivore Diet should be associated with Nazism, since Hitler and his compatriots were the strongest proponents of vegetarianism, animal welfare, and environmental preservation to have ever ruled a country. Himmler wanted to ban hunting, Goring sent Germans to concentration camps for violating animal welfare laws, and Hitler himself was a vegetarian who intended to shut down slaughterhouses in Germany after the War. Regardless, it is true that the National Socialist, “ecofascist,” and more generally Rightist approach to the natural world differ significantly in motivation from that of the Left.
Among the Right, veganism seems largely confined to National Socialists and some of their latter-day admirers. Savitri Devi was probably the most notable proponent of this line of thought. Some contemporary organizations also wed veganism and animal liberation with pro-white and authoritarian politics. One of these is Greenline Front, an organization developed in Eastern Europe with branches in other countries, while there are also some activists of this persuasion in the animal liberation underground. One activist who might be familiar to long-time Counter-Currents readers is Tia Azar Foster. Judging by the condemnation she recently earned from the good antifascists of Asheville, she has evidently not compromised her ideals since her interview with Keith Preston eight years ago.
The contemporary Left naturally looks with horror upon Right-wing or racialist permutations of environmentalism, and accuses Rightists of “appropriating” or “co-opting” their noble cause (never mind that conservation was originally an aristocratic preoccupation anyways). However, based on its history, Right-wing veganism cannot simply be reduced to an attempt to jump on a successful bandwagon. Moreover, unlike their Leftist counterparts, these vegans of the Right can appreciate that the laws of nature require blood and sacrifice, and do not deny the necessity of death and suffering. Why, then, do they embrace veganism?
Personal fastidiousness likely plays a role. More importantly, I believe that their deep appreciation for natural laws leads these Right-wing vegans to reject the arrogant humanism that justifies man’s domination over nature. They do not deny the existence of hierarchy, of course — they value the preservation of “nature’s aristocrats,” whether they be the noblest races of mankind, or the highest specimens of the plant and animal world. However, they categorically reject the humanistic notion that mankind is, merely by virtue of its rationality or “soul,” intrinsically superior to the rest of the natural world. They associate this anthropocentrism with the Abrahamic religions, and hold it responsible for many of the ecological and ethical evils perpetrated by adherents of these religions. They believe that Judaism, Christianity, and the modern Western philosophies that followed them regard animals and nature as a collection of resources for human use, in contrast to the more life-affirming attitudes of indigenous European traditions.
Ego versus Eco.
Ecofascist.
In this rejection of anthropocentrism, they agree with vegans of the Left. However, while the Left imposes its own morality on nature, the Right evaluates human behavior in the light of natural law. From this perspective, mankind little merits the veneration of its humanists. It is inferior and ignoble humans, reveling in their own sense of superiority, that pose the greatest threat to the truly noble peoples and species of the Earth. For this reason, Savitri Devi calls upon the faithful aristocratic remnant:
To preserve, insofar as it is still possible, the beauty of the world: human, animal, vegetable, inanimate; all beauty; to obstinately and efficiently preserve élite minorities; dedicatedly to defend them at all costs — all noble minorities, whether they be those of the Aryans of Europe, Asia, or America, conscious of the excellence of their common race; or of those splendid large felines threatened by extinction; or of those noble trees threatened by the atrocity of being uprooted by bulldozers in order to install, on their nourishing soil, invading multitudes of mammals with two legs, less beautiful and less innocent than they.
In Devi and similar writers, one senses a profound indignation — not at the reality of death and suffering, but rather that noble and beautiful animals should die at the hands of such manifestly inferior specimens of mankind. The very idea that the soft, decadent, cosmopolitan urbanite of the present could boast about his superiority to the “beasts” from the comfort and safety of his apartment, that innocent animals should suffer in order to feed a bloated population of Untermenschen, or test cosmetic products, or to provide entertainment — all of this is cause for anger. It is not the mere fact of men killing animals that irks them, but rather how and in what quantities these animals were killed — and who was responsible for the killing. Savitri Devi speaks critically of sport hunting in the Roman Empire, for instance, but acknowledges that the human impact on the natural world was not particularly egregious until technological development permitted much vaster encroachments into wilderness and prolonged the human lifespan.
Thus, the Rightist vegan rejects meat consumption out of love for other animals, an acknowledgement of our interrelatedness with them, and a fierce contempt for the arrogant anthropocentrism that would drive wild animals to extinction, condemn legions of domestic animals to slaughter, fell the forests, poison the waters, and blacken the sky. Their veganism is, therefore, part of their rejection of modernity and longing for a cleaner, purer world. Some might argue that in rejecting meat consumption for humans, these Rightist vegans are in fact behaving in a profoundly unnatural manner, and arrogantly setting themselves above the rest of life. To this, Savitri Devi has an intriguing response:
He who has the Word, father of thought, and who, far from putting it in service of the essential, wastes it in the search for personal satisfactions; he who has technology, fruit of thought, and who makes use of it especially to increase his well-being and that of other men, taking that for the main task, is unworthy of his privileges. He is not worthy of the beings of beauty and silence, the animal, the tree — he who himself follows their path. He who uses the powers that the Word and thought give him to inflict death and especially suffering on the beautiful beings that do not speak, in view of his own well-being or that of other men, he who uses the privileges of man against living nature sins against the universal Mother — against Life — and the Order that desires “noblesse oblige.” He is not Strong; he is not an aristocrat in the deep sense of the word, but petty, an egoist and a coward, an object of disgust in the eyes of the natural élite.
In short, given man’s high capabilities, it would be unconscionable to devote them purely to the aims common to men and animals — propagation, consumption, and self-preservation. To merit his status as an aristocrat of nature, man must transcend his animal nature and devote himself to the preservation of the pure and noble.
In evaluating this outlook, it is clear that Rightist veganism avoids many errors of its leftist counterpart. It does not deny the value of suffering and death, or posit that man’s task is to abolish them; it does not rest upon any chimerical egalitarian notions, but rather recognizes an order and rank among creatures (without placing mankind as a whole invariably at the top); and it avoids the confusion of granting particular animals “rights” that might stand in opposition to overall ecological health.
Additionally, all forms of veganism condemn the human exploitation of animals in factory farming, vivisection, the fur industry, circuses, and trophy hunting. Leftist vegans condemn these for the needless pain and suffering they cause. By contrast, the Rightist ecologist recognizes that what is immoral in man’s treatment of these animals is not the pain inflicted — all animals experience pain in the wild, as a consequence of predation, disease, starvation, and cold. The true evil is the transformation of self-willed creatures into machines, human artifacts whose life consists of being confined to a cage and injected with drugs. Compared to this, a life in the wild is preferable, even if it is punctuated by episodes of hunger and pain and ends in a burst of terror and agony. [6]
In short, vegans are absolutely correct about the immorality of how humans treat animals. But does this mean that all forms of meat consumption are inherently immoral? Since I think we can all agree that humans indisputably evolved to eat meat, there does not appear to be any sound biological argument against continuing to do so. And if we evolved to eat meat, there does not appear to be any particularly good argument against hunting for it (unless doing so would lead to the species’ extinction). In fact, if one is chiefly concerned with suffering, then getting taken down by a bullet is probably far less painful than starvation, prolonged sickness and exposure, or being ripped apart by a grizzly bear.
As for the supposed benefits of the vegan diet as opposed to the garden-variety omnivory, Mr. Costello’s articles make a compelling case that the health benefits of veganism are overstated. However, this does not mean that it has no benefits at all. The avoidance of animal products was traditionally believed to be more conducive to a higher spiritual state. The sattvic diet described in Hinduism, which is also described as the “yogi’s diet,” counsels the avoidance of flesh and most dairy, as well as certain fruits and vegetables which tend to stimulate and inflame the organism. This is also one reason that traditional Lenten austerities included a generally vegan diet: in addition to being an act of asceticism, such a diet was believed to grant access to higher spiritual states.
Speaking from my own experience, in my attempts to recreate the rigors of medieval Lent I found that a vegan diet did exercise a calming effect on the libido and passions, and gave me a general feeling of emptiness that allowed for greater prayer and meditation. That being said, it may not be desirable to feel that way all the time, and I found the vegan diet very difficult to sustain. And there are times when the raw energy and virility that can come from meat consumption are necessary for action (hence the pallid, unmotivated “soy boy” stereotype). So, unless one is striving to achieve certain heightened spiritual or intellectual states, prolonged veganism is unlikely to be conducive to long-term strength or wellbeing.
Eating Meat, the Right Way
So, should the carnivore diet — or at least a diet that includes meat — be considered an important part of the Rightist lifestyle?
For those who would emphasize the “manliness” and essentially Right-wing quality of eating meat, it is necessary to point out that eating dead animals, alone, does not make a man or an authoritarian. The soy boy may eschew a rare steak and his testosterone levels might suffer thereby; but is the garden-variety American, overweight, pumped full of chemicals, munching on a fast-food hamburger while binge-watching Netflix, really any better? The mere consumption of meat does not require any true masculinity, discipline, honor, or sacrifice. One buys it at the store, wrapped in plastic, no different from a bag of potato chips or a block of tofu. Moreover, the sources of most of the meat we consume are responsible for poisoning the land and water, injecting artificial hormones into our bodies, deforesting previously wild land in order to turn it into a factory of living flesh, and in short, bringing the world one step closer to a storehouse for human consumption.
There are a few solutions to this problem. One is to eschew the factory farms and buy meat and dairy products directly from small farmers. This serves the dual function of supporting local businesses. Better yet, if you are lucky enough to have the opportunity, try to raise some livestock yourself. You’ll actually know what they’re being fed, you’ll experience a sense of satisfaction at successfully raising them, you’ll ensure that they have a decent life, and you will also be personally responsible for their slaughter. For if we are to eat meat, we should know where it comes from, and we should be aware and appreciative of the sacrifices that are made to sustain us.
However, for men who wish to get in touch with their truly primal roots, short of close-combat warfare, there is nothing quite so primeval as the hunt. Myriad benefits accrue to one who returns to this ancestral lifeway. One learns silence and stillness, ruthlessness and respect. It cultivates mental and physical toughness, concentration, awareness, and skill. More than hiking or camping or fishing, hunting is the outdoor activity that truly places one back into nature.
Livre de la Chasse, French, c. 1430-40
Hunting is a traditionally noble pastime — indeed, most of the wild parks in Europe, the United States, and Africa began as the hunting preserves for royalty and aristocrats. Hunting is the most visceral way to learn about discipline, observation, awareness, and the act of killing that is currently available to mankind. Whatever game you catch will taste better than anything you have ever eaten, as you will have earned it by the sweat of your own brow and it will not be injected with chemicals and corrupted by domestication. You will learn a true respect for the animal other, for as Ortega y Gassett writes, “The greatest and most moral homage we can pay to certain animals on certain occasions is to kill them with certain means and rituals.” [7] And finally, your licensure will contribute more to the conservation effort than any urban vegan who recycles and protests climate change ever will. If you truly wish to set yourself apart from the modern, take up hunting, or at least make an attempt. It doesn’t have to be an expensive hobby. Bows can be gotten for fairly cheap, as can a hunting license.
The problem with both of these alternatives, of course, is that family farming and hunting are not sustainable occupations to feed our rapidly increasing populations. It is the exploding human population that rendered such abominations as factory farming and industrial agriculture necessary in the first place. So, unless there is a significant curtailment of human population growth or considerable technological advances, this will not be a viable solution for all.
However, we have to start somewhere. Since those on the Right constitute a breed apart, and often fancy ourselves an aristocracy of sorts, it is only appropriate that we adopt particular dietary practices associated with traditional civilization and the old world nobility. In terms of formulating an authentic counter-culture, how we eat plays an important role. The growing interest in ancestral diets, small farming, locally sourced food, and hunting is an important step in the right direction.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
Notes
[1] J. Baird Callicott, “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair,” in In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. 25.
[2] Ibid., 30.
[3] Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 225.
[4] Callicott, 33.
[5] Alain Danielou, The Myths and Gods of India. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International, Ltd., 1985. 63, 67.
[6] Callicott, 35.
[7] Jose Ortega y Gassett, Meditations on Hunting. Belgrade, Montana: Wilderness Adventures Press, 2007. 101.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
27 comments
Great article and much for me to reflect upon. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
When it comes to environmental politics. I believe in pragmatic approaches instead of injecting moral sensibilities and emotions into the problem. As you described in this essay, the very nature of the universe is one of sacrifice, death making way for life.
I do not believe in veganism because veganism is unnatural. Still, I do not believe in unnecessary suffering, because carnivores and predators in the wild are efficient killers and are generally not sadistic (well, I’ve seen some sadistic felines, but that is another story).
I believe the problem isn’t our diets. The problem is technology and the unnatural explosion in human populations the last 200 years. Our obsession with life having some kind of religious sanctity, a leftist, progressive notion derived from, yes, Abrahamic religions, is what has caused the problems we now face. The solution is NOT to bestow lower forms of life the same divinity that we assign to humanity.
Again. Pragmatism. Can we raise livestock and regulate slaughter practices in the least cruel ways possible while also providing or human consumption? I believe we can. Can the natural balance of wildlife be maintained with regulated hunting? Of course it can.
I’m all for people eating as they see fit. Vegans are fine by me. To each their own. But I’ll be damned if I’m forced subsist by eating powdered bug matter and grubs with soy milk just so that Bessy the cow doesn’t have to sacrifice her life to feed my family.
Maybe genetic engineering will lead us to a day when edible animal muscles can be grown with stem cells in some kind of farm factory, where the muscles are not attached to a living brain. I’d be ok with that.
“Maybe genetic engineering will lead us to a day when edible animal muscles can be grown with stem cells in some kind of farm factory, where the muscles are not attached to a living brain” – If humans are going to be involved in such food engineering schemes, you can rest assured that it will turn out to be horrific – especially when assorted GMO corporations have a hand in it. More than likely obesity rates will skyrocket and new diseases will result that Big Pharma will be eager to make an even greater profit from.
By the way, lean muscle meat has some nutritional value, but it’s second to saturated animal fat and organ meats. Interestingly, the Indians on the plains gave the leanest meats to their dogs, and saved the fat and organs for themselves. They knew the value of fat. Most Americans are still scared of it though, having been duped for generations by Ancel Keyes that saturated fat would clog their arteries.
By muscles, I include organs. And fatty tissues that naturally surround them both.
I’ll reiterate. I’m not against the killing of livestock for food stuff. All I’m getting at is, there might be technological solutions that don’t turn out to be unhealthy, that don’t deny humans the right to consume animal flesh, and that are more environmentally pragmatic. As someone who purchases my meat from grocery stores and trusts in the safe and clean handling of the meat from farmer to butcher, and who has no hand in the raising, feeding, and slaughtering of the animal; I’d not miss anything if my steaks tasted just the same with the same nutritional value, but came from the brain-dead carcass of an animal whose flesh was grown in some kind of factory process. Is it preferred? No. But I can see myself accepting this in the future if the meat is rigorously tested for health and nutritional benefit.
No, generally speaking, muscle meats refers to the lean, muscular portions of meat and poultry, as opposed to the fatty regions, organ meats, bones and the rich bone marrow which provide greater nutritional value.
“I’d not miss anything if my steaks tasted just the same with the same nutritional value, but came from the brain-dead carcass of an animal whose flesh was grown in some kind of factory process” – Sorry, food for human consumption engineered in some lab would simply not have the “same nutritional value,” but you rest assured that Big Agriculture would say it does.
Rest assured that whenever Big Agri or Big Pharma or Big Anything has a hand in our food or medicine, it’s bound to have some ingredients that does not comport with the human body. This is because the bottom line for them is not human health, but cost effectiveness and profit. Their motivations at the very outset are different from those who are health-conscious. The good folks who produced the chemical ‘Round-Up’ surely claimed that their product did not harm plants or humans, but there are a good many people who could produce evidence that says the complete opposite.
Food for human consumption is best left in its natural state and methods. The minute humans try to tinker with the created order of things – especially when left in the hands of profiteers – it’s almost inevitable that it will turn out bad for human health.
It’s true that people shifting from a standard American diet to a Vegan diet often feel much better, at least at first. This is because the typical diet Americans consume is so rich in processed carbs and loads of sugar. When these things are eliminated on a Vegan diet, it’s natural that they would start to feel much better. Health concerns would also improve. Heck, just eliminating sugar and starchy carbs that come in a box would resolve most people’s health problems.
But that’s almost always at the beginning. The problems soon set in. What Vegans don’t often share are the plethora of gut issues they have because they’ve consumed so many vegetables. This is because vegetables release a host of toxins as a defense system from being eaten. This doesn’t always comport with our human digestion, although some people can tolerate it better than others. But again, gut issues are a common problem with Vegans and many of them will admit to it.
Vegans also suffer from a host of deficiencies which don’t often manifest until sometime later. They, of course, have protocols to make up for their deficiencies but they are artificial. It demonstrates that vegetables alone are insufficient to provide the variety of nutritional needs that the human body requires. However, on a Carnivore Diet, there is little need to supplement because animal products are nutritional rich. providing most if not all that we need. Contrary to what the nutritional establishment would have us believe, vegetables are not necessary for robust health.
Vegans won’t admit the dirty little secret among them – namely, that they often ‘cheat’ and eat meat, fish and chicken in order to gain better health. Their body cries out for saturated fat from animals and many of them privately violate their own diet advice because they know how much better they start to feel with animal products in their lives. Those who come out of the Vegan ‘movement’ will frequently admit to it.
Another concern is the mental problems that occur when saturated fat is avoided in one’s diet. The brain is comprised mostly of cholesterol/fat, and when cholesterol that animal fat provides is removed from the diet, it should surprise no one that Vegans start to suffer from mental illness and low testosterone. Many former Vegans have described how much better they’ve felt once they returned to eating meat.
I’ve observed hard-core Vegans for many years. I’ve talked and debated several of them too. Most of them seemed to have a whole lot of other issues going on inside their heads than simply diet issues. They’re often eccentric personalities with radical social and political views. A smug self-righteousness permeates much of what they say and do. Many are Vegans for reasons other than they prefer to eat vegetables only. They can be just as fanatical over their Vegan religion as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist.
In short, based on my own studies, it seems that humans were designed to eat vegetables, but only when meat and other animal products were not readily available. Vegetables, then, were secondary and never meant to be the dominant food group in our diets. No native or hunter ever tossed out fresh meat in order to scarf away at vegetables!
The science of all this and the typical objections are answered in Paul Saladino’s book, ‘The Carnivore Code.’
Is there any medical literature to support your claims about veganism? Paul Saladino is mentally retarded. Homozygote Hypobetalipoproteinemia patients have as little as 0 (zero) LDL cholesterol without symptoms. According to your baseless conjecture, they should be retarded. On the contrary, we find that experimentally elevating cholesterol causes brain damage in mammals.This is probably why you believe quacks like Saladino.
“Hunting is a traditionally noble pastime — indeed, most of the wild parks in Europe, the United States, and Africa began as the hunting preserves for royalty and aristocrats.”
Nah, they were degenerates. No danger, no honor. Do something that can kill you. Ride a motorcycle. See if your brain can recreate vectors, vanishing points and horizon lines in real time. Or scale mountains. Or gentrify a black neighborhood. Many more I’m sure.
Peace.
Excellent article! I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying, but just wanted to point out that, from a Rightist (but particularly Traditionalist and Christian/Muslim) perspective, it is also possible to affirm the supremacy of the human being as the pinnacle of Creation, while calling for the need to cherish and protect other animals and the biosphere – which may or may not include the adoption of a vegan diet. A great book on the subject (from a more moderate ‘conservative’ Christian perspective) is “Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy” by Matthew Scully.
Re: the issue of veganism and hormone levels (an apparently common topic, following the ‘soyboy’ meme), in the only comparative study I have seen, the vegan sample actually displayed HIGHER testosterone levels than the vegetarian and carnivorous samples.
I appreciate the balance here. I’m very interested in health and nutrition, largely from a perspective of what’s cleanest and most energizing and sustaining for the whole being, body mind and spirit.
I’ve recently been making dietary changes (over and above my regular small tweaks and experiments) but too early to comment on.
Your emphasis on harmony with natural order is well met, I’d say for any diet the rule of thumb is keep it clean, unprocessed, close to the earth.
I would like to see a resurgence in hunting, ultimately I would like to see more whites take up the hobby and get away from this addiction to pro sports and pop culture. It does teach you patience and discipline and you are in tune with nature. A major reason for it’s decline is due to the decline in the nuclear family, this has been documented. People are normally introduced to the sport by their fathers. People raised by a single mother are statistically less likely to take it up. I don’t believe it will completely ever go away. Despite the popularity of vegetarianism and veganism, most people are omnivores and always will be. Logically, it can be difficult to be opposed to it if you eat meat. It doesn’t have to be expensive. You can find inexpensive quality firearms if you look hard enough. Don’t be put off by these expensive firearms, don’t let that be a deterrent. Another thing to consider is this, small game hunting is another option. It doesn’t require as much expense, discipline, or planning of big game hunting. Squirrel hunting is easy and has a high success rate and yes the meat is tasty. If hunting doesn’t appeal to you, then at least consider getting back to nature. If you have a national forest you, take advantage of it. It is sure to have hiking trails and a campground. It is good way to get away from the cultural rot we have to put up with. Don’t waste your money on celebrities and athletes that despise you. On top of that national forests, at least where I live, are visited almost exclusively by whites, and their civil.
Excellent and balanced article. I’ve been a vegetarian, occasional vegan, for over twenty years. A couple years ago I paused and experimented with eating meat, for perhaps six weeks altogether. (I stopped eating diary and eggs then as a sort of “compromise.”) But I didn’t find the health effects drastic enough to justify consuming meat over taking an Omega-3 supplement. I recognize the arbitrariness of this though, and may experiment with eating some carefully selected meat in the future.
The difference between an animal raised in the wild, or on a small farm under humane conditions, and an animal reared in a factory farm is perhaps the biggest ethical chasm of all when it comes to the question of meat. (I know that in other times meat would not have been much less of a question, but we live in a ‘supermarket’ age, for better or–more likely–worse.) Given the price difference between factory-farmed and non-factory farmed meat, many people select the former. I don’t want to risk falling down that slope, and thus have chosen to abstain from meat.
If humans have any ‘special’ value at all, it is as shepherds over the natural world. Only one race has proven itself consistently up to the task, though I sometimes comfort myself with the hope that East Asians can improve… It’s difficult to express the amount of despair I feel at all the donations for St. Fentanyl and Co., when only 3% of charities are devoted to animal/environmental causes. If Nigerians were as rare as snow leopards, perhaps I would begin to care more about Nigerians.
Mr. de Vere is one of my favorite writers at Counter Currents. I also enjoyed the interview with Tia Azar Foster. Please pardon if I sound a bit vain here, but it’s so rare to hear from another youngish female who feels similarly, you’d think we were snow leopards ourselves.
Diet based on “harmony with natural order” isn’t doable in a world of 7.5 billion pieholes begging for meat (or any other food). Just for starters, there’d be more malnutriton than ever if governments everywhere didn’t mandate addition of certain vitamins in food. Nothing natural about that. It’s been proved to prevent deficiency to some degree. Why is that okay but it’s some kind of hypocrisy for vegans and vegetarians to take supplements directly from a bottle.
Billions of cozy little natural farmlets with happy cows and chickens wandering in the back yard munching (“pasturing”) on grass and weeds grown on mineral rich soil? Right. There is no longer any soil, anywhere, that has all the minerals necessary for animal and human health, and there never was. Minerals were not distributed evenly on the earth in the first place. You have to add it to your field and it comes from mines. No ecologically correct mines around that I know of. Most people don’t know that farmers and ranchers add dozens of nutrients to their animals’ feed. If they did not do this, animals would be sickly and dying left and right. Fights in the meat aisle for the privilege of getting your hands on $40/lb hamburger.
The genie’s out of the bottle, folks, and that’s all you need to know. Widespread war and natural disasters are needed to reduce the human population and then things will likely fall into place. Then you can have all the lovely meat you wish. Or plant food if that’s more to your liking. However, maybe it’ll be more like Soylent Green for everyone.
Yes, the population is far too large. But raising natural organic grassfed livestock on pasture is not only sustainable, but rejuvenating for the soil. Modern agriculture has basically been “mining” our soil, and we need to build it back by bringing animals back to the land.
The Ego/Eco illustration clearly shows a natural hierarchy on the “Ego” side and an anarchist leveling on the “Eco” side. How is that not the opposite of “the Right” and hierarchy?
Also, how does opposition to “arrogantly setting themselves above the rest of life,” clearly an anti-hierarchical conceit, square with the “right” concept of natural hierarchies?
It also seems absurd to pair fascism, a thoroughly modern and industrial political movement, with a kind of wilderness philosophy. How was Hitler’s and his cohort’s vegetarianism any different than the left-wing “animal rights activists” of today?
The advocacy for meat-eating and respect for Wilderness seems good and true, but shoe-horning these ideas into “right” vs. “left” seems quite strained and even cynical.
I am a vegetarian. I grew up in the Midwest. As a teen I worked on farms for date money. I saw the numerous chemicals that were injected into animals. I also witnessed a number of animals slaughtered. I saw the terror in the eyes of other animals as they waited their turn. These were sights and sounds I never forgot.
All the while, I continued to eat meat. From my experiences, I knew meat-eating was bad–bad for me physically, and certainly bad for the animals. At some point in my youth, it occured to me that just as I had been given only one shot at life, so too had the animal I was eating. That did not seem fair. And yet I continued to eat meat.
As I matured, my conscience troubled me more and more. Since I knew full well what it took to create that hamburger or hot dog I was eating, I enjoyed meat less and less.
Although I had done things in my life that I regretted, no regret was more powerful or caused more guilt than eating meat. Hence, one day in my early thirties, I simply quit.
It was hard at first. Fast food was everywhere and eating meat was all I knew. But each time I was tempted, the sights and sounds of the past graphically came back.
Perhaps it was a coincidence, but probably not. Since becoming a vegetarian years ago, I have never had any more problems with keeping the weight off. I have also had no more problems with focusing hard and sharp on any subject at hand. I personally believe that by removing the guilt from the meals I now eat has removed the thing that was a major distraction in my life.
Certainly, in this war we find ourselves engaged in, the fewer distractions we face, the more intense our focus will be.
I’m not a vegan but I don’t eat any animal products. Eggs, meat, dairy, etc. It is interesting the “one thing we can all agree on” is the one thing you get wrong. There being no biological justification for not eating animals. That is false. There is very strong evidence eating animal products increases the risk of Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, etc. Eating animals is unhealthy. The animals suffering is bad but thats not what motivates me. Once you realize how bad that stuff is it becomes disgusting. I’ll wear leather shoes and I dont care if my shampoo is tested on a monkey but there’s no way in hell I’m putting dead animals in my mouth.
I think Dr Weston Price in his field researh some 100 years ago gave us a pretty good acid test to the validity of a nutrtional regime: Can it sustain a healthy population generation after generation?
He found no society where nobody ate either insects, milk products, eggs, fish, fowl or red meat. If veganism is all some claim it to be it should flourish.
If you want to try it as an adult, by all means.
If you try to impose it.on your children, they should be taken away from you.
Weston Price never found a healthy population. He was a profound moron. Animal fat causes cardiovascular disease, even in the primitive populations he studied. Cardiovascular disease is a multi-million year pandemic, because there are no vegan populations.
I rest my case.
“In Devi and similar writers, one senses a profound indignation — not at the reality of death and suffering, but rather that noble and beautiful animals should die at the hands of such manifestly inferior specimens of mankind. The very idea that the soft, decadent, cosmopolitan urbanite of the present could boast about his superiority to the “beasts” from the comfort and safety of his apartment, that innocent animals should suffer in order to feed a bloated population of Untermenschen, or test cosmetic products, or to provide entertainment — all of this is cause for anger”
This thing doesn’t exist. This whole idea of men boasting of their superiority to animals never existed anywhere, I never heard of anyone boasting how he is superior to animals, unless he is a clinical lunatic. Not even the most nihilistic predators of wild-life are motivated by some kind of self-aggrandizing mission. They are motivated by self-interest and guided by their stupidity.
This whole problematic was literally invented out of plain cloth by Phraseologists such as Savitri Devi whose legacy of sentimental fallacies has found such fertile soil in the spiritual landscape of today, where masculine reason and common sense has been replaced with causes, feelings, sentiments, hypersensitivity to every hierarchy, navel-gazing, heavy metal ballads and other sorts of middle-brow crap.
in the spiritual landscape of today, where masculine reason and common sense has been replaced with causes, feelings, sentiments, hypersensitivity to every hierarchy, navel-gazing, heavy metal ballads and other sorts of middle-brow crap.
Those “feelings, sentiments [and] hypersensitivity” might somehow spring up when you find someone so much as plucking a few strands of hair from your precious little puppy Bingo or kittycat Calico or giving them a kick. Or when you find out they’ve been stolen and sold to a lab.
Have a read on your precious rational minded Rene Descartes’ view of animals. Here’s the short version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes#On_animals
You see, animals seem to be suffering, but aren’t, really.
What I’m talking about has nothing to do with the intricacies of pet ownership, but I suspect you somehow know that (owning pets is very Evangelical from the point of view of radical Pantheism I have to indicate). I’m talking about people who are still trying to figure out man’s “place in nature”. If reasonable people, I mean people who can actually tie their own shoes still believed in this superstitious phantasm called “Nature”, we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.
But why warn people of the dangers of modern living to our future with reasonable, clear-headed argument, or even with a carefully crafted emotional appeal where effective? You don’t get to pose as a hip radical that way. Let’s not fool ourselves about what the priorities are.
https://www.amazon.com/Should-Eat-Meat-Evolution-Consequences/dp/1118278720
Humans aren’t actually evolved to eat meat. You could feed a rabbit meat and it will “survive”, but eventually die of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Bottom of the barrel IQ self-styled nutrition experts will look at that outcome and claim rabbits were omnivorous by design.
Left-wing communist vegan here. How do you extreme rightists in the comments section who presumably believe in the ideas of eugenics reconcile this with a dislike of GMOs? How can NRX transhumanist types promote human augmentation while wanting natural hunting sites for their neofeudalist overlords? Quite interested in what responses I’ll get.
Liza Klein asks: How do you extreme rightists in the comments section who presumably believe in the ideas of eugenics reconcile this with a dislike of GMO’s?
Eugenics of any high tech or unnatural sort is shit. Nature knows. You can’t fool her. There will always be a sting in the tail down the line. A long time ago, no one understood why some babies were defective. Today, more is known*, but no one wants to apply it, because it means the parents will have to remove themselves from all poisonous biological, medical and social influences for quite some time prior to conception. It’s a lot easier to go for some obscene reproductive technology of one kind or another to get your “superior” child, encouraged heavily by various greedy specialists with their desire for wealth.
*I have a neat book written by a veterinary Dr./nature doctor about the roles of mineral & vitamin deficiencies in birth defects in both humans and animals, or maybe just general overall inferiority/weakness in offspring. No tribe or culture escapes his lash. Yes, the long-ago far northerners had health problems, too. If things were perfect, no people or tribe anywhere would have had to develop various forms of medicine. Let’s dispense with any and all ideas of perfectibility.
What we white people have done, our particular contribution as a race, is explain this world to itself and why it functions as it does and what do we get? Kill Whitey. As if any falsity and pretence are somehow unique to us.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment