Why Are Vegans So Full of Anger and Hatred?

 

OK, first things first: Not all vegans are a bunch of angry, histrionic nutters. I’ve received emails from numerous folks at pains to reassure me they don’t go proselytizing their vegan beliefs to everyone who will (and won’t) listen, and that they can’t do enough to distance themselves from lunatics like Harley “Durianrider” Johnstone and Leanne “Freelee/Banana Girl” Ratcliffe. And beyond the confines of my inbox, there are folks like ex-MMA fighters Jake Shields and Mac Danzig, who talked about their veganism when asked about it in interviews, but were also quick to emphasize it was a personal choice and they weren’t out to convert or push their beliefs onto others.

But then there’s the rest of Club Vegan, which resembles one terribly hateful, irrational and intolerant religious cult. Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain aptly described veganism as the “Hezbollah-like splinter-faction” of vegetarianism, and I couldn’t agree more.

Vegans are quick to make much ado about any science that seemingly supports their anti-animal food beliefs, but when I and others dissect this alleged science and highlight its falsity, all of a sudden science doesn’t matter anymore. What we instead see emerge from these people is an irrepressible need to simply spew hate-drenched venom at those who dare point out the truth.

Here are some sterling examples of this mentality, straight from my inbox:

vegan-nutter-jaylah-vertical

As you can see, Jaylah was sufficiently angered by my discussion of the pseudoscientific Forks Over Knives propaganda film, that he felt the need to write me and insult me personally. When I pressed him for some science to justify his vitriol, all of a sudden Jaylah lost interest and the whole matter conveniently became one big yawn.

And check out this not-so-endearing correspondence I received just this morning from some wackopath identifying himself as “Wyatt Knowles”:

vegan-nutter-wyatt-knowles-vertical

What a charmer. I’m guessing the last time “Wyatt Knowles” got laid was … never.

People like this never cease to amaze me. They earnestly seem to think they can bring me around to their point of view by hurling such enchanting epithets as “You fucking dumb cunt”.

Most unlikely.

Or maybe they think I’m such a tender little tulip that I’m going to feel real bad and burst into tears after reading their pithy insults:

“Oh no! Some wanker on the Internet who thinks eating like a goat is the ultimate form of human nutrition doesn’t like me! My life is ruined!! BAAAWHAAAW!”

Again, most unlikely.

What both of these hysterical screwballs need to do is get a little perspective in their life.

Of course, before they do that, they actually need to get a life.

I don’t pretend to be a philosopher, nor an ethicist. I focus my nutritional writings on nutritional science, not musings about ethics and animal rights. But if you vegan jokers want my opinion on the ethics of veganism and meat-eating, then fine, here it is:

-Lying to people about the health effects of veganism, using misleading epidemiological research from pro-vegetarian and pro-vegan outfits like Loma Linda University (run by Seventh-day Adventists whose religion promotes vegetarianism, based upon the alleged visions of its prophet Ellen G. White) and Oxford University (home of the Oxford Vegetarians) is UNETHICAL. As is citing supposedly impartial reviews like that of the American Dietetic Association position statement on vegetarianism (which was in fact written and reviewed by vegetarians).

-Staunch vegetarian researchers (namely, the Loma Linda crowd and a certain Oxford researcher) who consistently fail to declare their blatant ideological conflicts of interests in the "competing interests" sections of their published papers are UNETHICAL. Especially considering these papers are used as 'evidence' to convince people to switch to vegetarianism.

-Banging on about animal rights while ignoring the well-documented adverse effects that vegetarian and vegan diets have on human beings is UNETHICAL.

-As a person who unashamedly places the welfare of his family and friends (and himself) above that of livestock, I think campaigning for a global switch to a diet that will potentially worsen millions of people’s health is EXTREMELY UNETHICAL. Especially so in the case of infants and children, who are likely to experience a quicker onset of symptoms and to be most severely impacted by such harmful health effects.

-As much as vegans wish to pretend it isn't so, the fact is humans have an evolutionary ingrained need for animal foods. Nutrients such as vitamin B12, creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine and bioavailable iron and zinc are indisputably necessary for optimal human health, and are either entirely absent or found in pitifully low amounts in plant foods. Many of these nutrients are also found in very low amounts in eggs and dairy, which explains why not only vegans but also lacto-ovo-vegetarians are far more likely to be deficient in these nutrients.

It also explains why, for the last two million+ years, humans have gone to the trouble of hunting, and then domesticating, animals for their meat. Humans did not do this for kicks - hunting was often a dangerous and time-consuming activity. Given that humans have a biological need for meat, and are hardwired to seek out meat for the nutrients it supplies, accusing humans of being unethical when they eat meat is STUPID.

As is accusing them of being unethical when they hunt or farm animals in order to obtain this meat. Accusing another human of unethical behaviour when they are simply seeking to fulfill an inbuilt nutritional need ranks on the same magnitude of stupidity as accusing someone of being unethical based on their race or gender or skin colour. All are characteristics that one is born with.

Accusing another human being of unethical behaviour when they are simply seeking to fulfill an inbuilt nutritional need for meat is every bit as idiotic as labeling a lion "immoral" when it stalks and kills a gazelle, or accusing a cat of "unethical" behaviour when it chases, captures and kills a mouse. At least in the case of modern human livestock farming, animals killed for their meat suffer a far less gory and painful fate than prey killed and mauled by a predator in the wild. But do vegans picket and protest against lions and cats?

Unlike most other animals, humans have the ability to reason, to think things through before we act (although many people routinely fail to exercise this ability). But the one thing we share with animals is that we have absolutely no power to change the nutritional needs we were born with.

Is it 'nice' when we kill a pig for its meat? Of course not. Is it 'nice' when a lion chases down a zebra and starts tearing it up while it is still alive? Of course not. But there are some things we cannot change. Until science comes up with a safe alternative that fulfills all the nutritional needs that meat does, then vegans need to accept that life isn't all roses and dandelions. Yes, we should always strive to treat animals in the most humane manner possible, but attempting to dictate to others that they should ignore their inbuilt nutritional need for meat, and attempting to make them feel guilty for not doing so, is an utterly irrational behaviour.

Peter Singer: The Animal Rights ‘Ethicist’ Who Sees Nothing Wrong with Sexually Molesting the Family Dog.

Peter Singer, who I am loathe to mention was born here in Australia, is the guy who gave the “animal rights” movement a shot in the arm with his 1975 book, Animal Liberation. Singer, who received part of his tertiary inculcation education within the pro-vegan confines of Oxford University, also helped popularize the concept of “speciesism”, which apparently is the inter-species equivalent of racism.

A lot of people think Peter Singer is a nut, and I’ll freely admit to being one of them. Before I explain why, I also want to freely admit to being a speciesist.

Yep, when it comes to species, you’d better believe I’m the biggest bigot on the planet.

For example, as a species, I like dogs way better than humans. In fact, I don’t just like dogs, I adore them. They really are beautiful creatures. Sometimes, when I’m out shopping, I’ll see a dog tied up to a post patiently waiting for its owner, and I can’t resist going over and patting it.

I never do that with humans.

I told you I’m a bigot.

In what other ways am I a speciesist?

Well, I don’t like alligators. To be honest, I don’t like anything that has the power to swallow me whole. That’s why, as an interspecies bigot, I firmly believe the best place for alligators and anacondas is dead in the Lucchese factory, their skins being cut and shaped to form the exquisitely crafted vamps of stunningly beautiful handmade boots.

I’ll give you another example of what a blatant speciesist I am. Let’s pretend I’m standing by the side of the road in a busy shopping precinct. Directly to my left is your young child, who is also standing on the edge of the road. She wandered away from you, and you didn’t even notice because you were too busy checking your Facebook updates with one hand while squeezing mangos at Rocco’s Fruiteria with the other.

Meanwhile, directly to my right, is a goat. I have no idea what a goat would be doing freely wandering around a suburban shopping strip, but trust me, I’ve seen far weirder shit.

Now, unlike anacondas and alligators, I have no issue with goats. As far as species go, they’re a pretty low profile and non-belligerent bunch, so they’re cool with me. I mean, no goat has ever called me a “wog” or “dago” or yelled “GET OFF THE FUCKING ROAD!!” when I’m unobtrusively riding along on my bike minding my own damn business.

And while I’m something of a misanthrope, I have no issue with kids (the human ones). In fact, I get on quite well with them. After all, they haven’t grown up to be assholes yet, so they represent a shining ray of hope.

Anyway, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, I notice a car careening wildly out of control. It is careening out of control because the driver is some fucktard Homo sapien who was also too busy checking her Facebook updates on her mobile phone to watch where she was going. Unfortunately, her other hand is not holding a mango but the steering wheel of a car. And now the 2 tonnes of metal our dipshit licensing authorities regrettably allowed her to commandeer is heading directly towards me, the goat and your daughter. And it’s doing so very bloody quickly.

You’d better believe I’m going to jump the fuck out of the way. But before I do, I feel compelled to save both your daughter and the goat. After all, neither deserves to die at the hands of some peroxide-haired shithead who uses her phone while driving (an appalling but remarkably common Homo sapien behaviour).

But there’s the problem. I only have two arms and can only choose one other party to drag with me to safety. And I have about .000002 seconds to make my mind up. Instinctively, with .000001 seconds to spare, I grab your daughter, violently yank her out the way and dive toward the footpath like our lives depend on it. Which, of course, they do.

We make it! Your daughter is safe, although she’s crying her poor little brains out. I’ve sustained some grazing on my elbows and knees but, hey, I copped much worse during my BMX racing days.

The staff from Rocco’s Fruiteria are first on the scene and help us up from the asphalt. The wonderful checkout girls, Mariana, Liliana and Juliana (they're triplets), comfort your daughter until you interrupt your Facebooking/mango-squeezing carry on to look up to see what happened, and just about shit your Lululemon pants when you see it’s your daughter crying her eyes out.

What just happened is that I saved your daughter’s life. I could have elected to save the goat, but I chose to save your child instead. Why did I choose to save your daughter instead of the goat? Well, I wasn’t really thinking about it at the time, but I guess it’s because I felt saving your daughter’s life was more important than saving a goat’s life.

According to folks like Peter Singer and all those oddballs who think he’s intelligent, that makes me a murderous speciesist. Yep, I have goat blood on my hands!

What a crock. First, the blood on my hands is my own, and I got it from diving onto fucking asphalt. And the goat, for the record, is doing just fine. While I didn’t directly attempt to save him, in the mad scramble for safety I accidentally bumped his hairy chin while grabbing your daughter and he instinctively recoiled away from the road.

So I actually saved two lives. I think I deserve a glass of cognac. I’ll have mine with ice, thanks.

But all is not cut and dried. Before Peter Singer or his lunatic vegan cohorts wank on about what a heinous speciesist I am as a result of the goat example, they might want to consider the following scenario:

SCENARIO 2: Pretty much identical to the one above, with me and the goat and the idiot driving a car while using her mobile phone. Except this time, instead of your daughter to my left, it’s Peter Singer. I’ve seen video footage of Peter and, quite frankly, he’s not the most athletic-looking specimen. To make matters worse, he recently broke his ankle tripping off a stage after delivering his speech “Bestiality: What’s the Big Deal?” at a recent Fruitarian convention in San Francisco, so he’s now hobbling around on crutches.

And so Peter could really do with my help.

But…

…sorry Pete, I’m going to save the goat.

Hey, don’t get upset. Why should I pick you over a goat? That’s being speciesist! Not to mention hypocritical!

I could finish there, but “animal rights” and “speciesism” was just Singer’s warm-up act. He really hit his stride the day he decided to offer his opinion on…

Bestiality.

Yep, sex with animals.

Now, you might assume a guy who purports to be so concerned about animal welfare would find the idea of humans taking sexual advantage of animals to be utterly repugnant.

Not so.

Peter earnestly can’t see what the big deal is with bestiality. He honestly can’t understand why anyone would find it such a disgusting concept. So long as the animal isn’t harmed and you have its consent (???), then Peter thinks bestiality is perfectly harmless.

Before all the Singer apologists leap to his defence and scream “that’s not what he really said!” … oh yes it is. Here’s Singer in all his twisted glory:

Take careful note of how, if you replace the word “animals” with “children”, Singer’s arguments could be (and have been) used by paedophiles to justify the sexual molestation of children. And if you think I’m being overly dramatic, you clearly didn’t watch the video through to the section where the interviewer raises this exact point. Frighteningly, Singer again argues that if there is no evident ‘harm’ in adults having sexual relations with ten year olds, then he can’t see why such paedophilia should be considered morally impermissible. “I don’t have intrinsic moral taboos”, boasts Singer.

Well I sure as heck do, and the interviewer clearly does too. When he objects to Singer, “It’s just wrong though, isn’t it?”, the unrepentant Singer replies “No, I don’t see that you can say that, that’s not my view, right, my view is not that anything is just wrong, fullstop.”

Singer goes on to portray the interviewer’s thinking as an antiquated byproduct of evolution, and again points out that humans once held taboos about sexual relationships among people of the same sex. Most people now have little problem with homosexuality and it may one day be the same with paedophilia, argues Singer.

Of course, Singer neglects to mention the critical difference between the two scenarios: One involves two consenting adults, the other involves an adult taking advantage of a child still in his/her early formative years and manifestly ill-equipped to deal with sexual liaisons.

peter-singer-bad-hair-day
Peter Singer: It's not just his hair that's completely messed up...

And so, in Peter Singer, we have a guy who thinks slaughtering animals to fulfil a legitimate human nutritional need is a heinous act, but sodomizing the family dog – and even children - is no big deal. Anyone who has a problem with bestiality, according to Singer, just needs to get a grip. Anyone repulsed by the idea of sexual relations between humans and animals, according to Singer, is just driven by a need to retain a “gulf” between animals and humans.

Really? So all us devoted pet owners who pat, cuddle and even share sleeping quarters with our beloved pets, yet would tear the genitals off any sicko who tried to fornicate with them, are just seeking to maintain a “gulf” of superiority over our animals?

Planet Vegan: It’s a dark, twisted place.

Vegans: What Do they Stand for Exactly?

It’s interesting that, instead of objecting to people like Peter Singer, vegans direct their anger towards folks like me. Yeah, why get upset over a fellow vegan who thinks sex with animals and even kids is nothing to get worked up about – after all, he’s on the same team, right!

Far better to virulently attack those who point out the pseudoscientific nature of vegan health claims, especially when there is no scientific basis upon which to respond.

And so we end up with people like Jaylah, Wyatt Knowles, and Harley Johnstone, who when presented with info disputing his absurd claims, promptly resorts to threats and slander. The latter’s unhinged antics include falsely accusing others of child pornography and sucker-punching, threatening to release their books onto torrent sites, and even threatening to slash people’s throats. When confronted about his insane behaviour, the cowardly Johnstone maintains it’s “just a bit of banter” and “just a bit of fun”.

In addition to the aforementioned screwballs, we also end up with people like the cowards who physically assaulted author Lierre Keith on March 10, 2013.

How Many Vegans Does It Take to Assault a Lone Woman with Degenerative Spine Disease?

Keith was a former vegan of twenty years who concluded the vegetarian paradigm was deeply flawed, and had the temerity to pen her views in a book titled The Vegetarian Myth. Keith was speaking to an audience at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair about her book when suddenly three unidentified individuals, all dressed head-to-toe in black and wearing balaclava masks, ran onto the stage from behind her, each throwing a pie to her head. Keith was seated at the time, could not foresee what was about to happen, and was clearly stunned by the attack. As the Youtube footage below shows, the first assailant forcefully pushes his pie straight down onto the top of Keith’s head - not a very ‘ethical’ nor ‘humane’ thing to do to someone who suffers a degenerative spine condition, as Keith does. After their assault on both Keith and the concept of free speech, the masked morons quickly fled the scene.

To make matters worse, the pies were laced with cayenne pepper, which started to burn in Keith’s eyes. While this was going on, Keith experienced what she says was the worst moment of the assault - she could hear people in the audience cheering and laughing. Thankfully, some non-insane women from the audience grouped around her, took her to the bathroom, helped wash her eyes, and called the police.

Looking back, says Keith, it’s clear some people in the audience had prior knowledge of the impending attack. Keith recalls that prior to the assault there were numerous people sitting in the front rows sporting smug knowing expressions and wearing vegan slogans.

Once again, vegans demonstrated their extreme intolerance towards anyone who dares criticize their deeply flawed beliefs. If Keith’s book was so wrong, why couldn’t they simply demolish it with logical, science-backed arguments? I guess the answer to that is simple: They didn’t have any such arguments. Nope, much easier to simply vent the anger caused by discomforting information by physically assaulting a small, lone woman with a degenerative spinal condition.

Welcome to the Cult of Veganism.


I can’t stand Jimmy Moore either, but seeing as he’s the only one who bothered to talk to Keith after the attack…

Meet Some Real Animal Activists … Who Eat Meat

Every year in the Spanish town of Tordesillas, a bizarre and repulsive ritual takes place, known as the Toro de la Vega. During this gruesome event, a bull is released and then chased by people on foot and on horseback, armed with spears. The bull is repeatedly stabbed and pierced by the frenzied participants as it makes a desperate dash for freedom. Needless to say, the bull achieves no such respite and instead suffers unimaginable pain and terror as it dies a slow, agonizing death. The ‘winner’ is the person who allegedly delivers the final fatal blow. The traditional victory celebration involves slicing off the bull’s testicles, which the so-called ‘winner’ places on the end of his spear. He holds the testicles aloft and parades around to the cheers of the crowd.

Anyone who’s ever been to Spain will know the country has a near-obsession with bulls. Shops are littered with everything from cheap knickknacks to stunning mosaic statues depicting this ferocious beast. As an animal that radiates strength, power, fearlessness and virility, it’s not hard to understand why the Spanish, a colourful and passionate people who still consider manliness a virtue, would exalt the bull. Which only makes it all the more difficult to reconcile their love of the toro with the lingering cruelty that is part and parcel of bullfighting, a sport that still enjoys widespread - but admittedly declining – popularity in Spain.

But even where bullfighting has failed to raise much ire, the Toro de la Vega has raised abundant disgust, controversy and protest. Even General Franco disliked the event, and in 1964 sent the Civil Guard to Tordesillas in an attempt to halt it. Unfortunately, the bull still reached the plain and was killed, although the two lancers deemed victors that day were reportedly locked up and beaten.

Despite decades of outcry and opposition, the people of Tordesillas have remained defiant. They consider the Toro de la Vega a sacred local tradition, and believe no-one has the right to stop it. So much so, that when protestors clashed with spectators at last year’s event, several of the latter had no qualms about physically assaulting some of the female protestors.

That is not cool.

Among those disgusted by this less-than-chivalrous behaviour was Javier Garcia Roche, a competitive fighter who runs a boxing gym in the world’s most awesome city, Barcelona (sorry Melbourne, I’ve got a new love lol). Javi makes no claims to being an angel, but he is a professed animal lover who knows that real men don’t assault women.

“We have wives, we have female cousins, we have female friends”, said Javi. “And we don’t like when they get abused or assaulted.”

“And we don’t like when [the taurinos of Tordesillas] kill defenceless animals.”

Unlike the gutless anonymous vegan creeps who assaulted Lierre Keith, Javi has balls. And unlike the malevolent asshole vegans who laughed while the aforementioned three creeps assaulted Keith (and laughed again at the replays on Youtube), Javi sees nothing amusing about females being assaulted.

And so he put out the call on social media for people all over the world to come and stand alongside him as he faced down the participants and spectators at this year’s Toro de la Vega.

Now, you’d think vegans, with all their angry, loud posturing about animal rights, would’ve been the first to get in touch with Javi and tell him he could count on their support. But instead of promising to travel to Spain and hurl invective at those who think spearing bulls is good fun, the vegans started hurling invective at Javi … for not being vegan!

According to their messed-up logic, if Javi really cared about animals, then he would be a vegan. Never mind that he was the one who was actually prepared to confront hundreds of angry locals in defence of both women and animals.

The reigning vegan mindset is so messed up that it honestly can’t see any difference between the quick killing of animals for their meat – which is then used to fulfill very real human nutritional needs - and the cruel, sadistic, prolonged and painful killing of animals that occurs for no other reason than gratuitous entertainment.

But then again, what else can we expect from people who think it’s funny for three masked assholes to assault a lone female from behind?

By the way, there’s some good news just in about the Toro de la Vega: Last Thursday, the regional government of Castile and León moved to ban killings at the annual Toro de la Vega festival in the town of Tordesillas, and other similar events. The victory is a tentative one: The regional government’s decree must still be approved by the regional Parliament, and the mayor of Tordesillas told reporters that his administration would appeal the ban in court. I'm told by my man on the ground in Spain that this year's protests at the festival are still going ahead, because the protestors know full well they can't let up until permanent termination of the bull-spearing event is guaranteed.

Vegans: The ‘Peaceful’, ‘Humane’ People Driven by Anger and Hatred

So what do vegans really stand for? They make much ado about their animal rights concerns, and I have no doubt there are indeed individual vegans who truly do care about animal welfare. But as a whole, I’m just not feeling the love, whether it’s for animals or for their fellow humans. What I’m instead getting from these people is intolerance; a seething, white-hot intolerance of those who do not share their views.

What I’m sensing is that, for many vegans, the animal welfare argument runs a distant second to their real goal: Namely, to force their views upon others, and to harass, abuse and even assault those who refuse to join their cult.

vegan_how _do_you_know

This intolerance runs so deep that many vegans see no problem whatsoever with hurling unprovoked and puerile abuse at those who’ve never done a thing to them personally. It runs so deep, in fact, that many vegans even think violence against a defenceless woman is perfectly fine so long as it occurs in the name of the vegan cause.

The superficiality and emptiness of modern, consumerist Anglo-Western culture has driven many people to attach themselves to a ‘cause’ in an attempt to give their otherwise banal lives meaning. There is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting a truly worthy cause, but as Allan Bloom noted in Closing of the American Mind, simply having a cause seems to have become far more important than the actual validity or worthiness of the cause.

To all those vegans who think behaving like dietary jihadists in support of their currently trendy cause célèbre is A-OK, here’s a little something to think about: Two recent surveys, including one from the pro-vegetarian Humane Research Council, have found that a good three-quarters of people who embrace meatless diets will eventually go back to eating meat. A major reason for this is the declining health many experience after going meatless.

So, dear vegan jihadists, watch the vitriol, because there’s every chance you will one day join the ranks of those who you currently hate with such reckless abandon.

I'm guessing you'll feel a wee bit stupid when that happens.

Note: Ethics section of this article (just prior to the section discussing Peter Singer), was expanded on 23/5/2016. Peter Singer section updated on 12/9/2016.

---

Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist, and author of the groundbreaking books The Fat Loss Bible, The Great Cholesterol Con and Whole Grains, Empty Promises.

For more information on Anthony's books, click here.

---

The Mandatory “I Ain’t Your Mama, So Think For Yourself and Take Responsibility for Your Own Actions” Disclaimer: All content on this web site is provided for information and education purposes only. Individuals wishing to make changes to their dietary, lifestyle, exercise or medication regimens should do so in conjunction with a competent, knowledgeable and empathetic medical professional. Anyone who chooses to apply the information on this web site does so of their own volition and their own risk. The owner and contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm, real or imagined, from the use or dissemination of information contained on this site. If these conditions are not agreeable to the reader, he/she is advised to leave this site immediately.