While on a recent business trip to
Spokane, WA (my hometown), I found myself stuck in traffic
behind a green Honda Civic with a bumper sticker implying
that vegetarians were morally superior (versus those of us
who eat meat). Essentially, this bumper sticker stated that
the world would be a better, and therefore, more peaceful
place if all human beings became vegetarians (clearly for
alleged ethical reasons). One can picture a world where all
human beings and animals equally share the earth and live
in peace and harmony. As you will find out, this "ethical" vegetarian
platitude (i.e. that vegetarianism leads to peace) is utter
It is crucial to understand that "ethical" vegetarians
are biocentric. Indeed, this is a worldview where all animals
(not just mankind) are created equal. Thus, it follows that
a boy, is a dog, is a pig, is a rat (and in some circles
you may add ...is a tree). Just surf the internet and you
will find vegetarian websites preaching this peace and harmony
stuff as if it were gospel (apparently, if people stopped "murdering" and
eating animals, we will be less likely to murder fellow human
beings and even to wage war). Moreover, it is dogmatically
stated that going vegetarian will save the environment. Ethical
vegetarians are definitely aligned with the "green socialist" political
movement. If ethical/biocentric vegetarians are correct about
the moral superiority of their movement, then it wouldn't
be possible to find evidence to contradict their "green" assertions
that vegetarianism leads to peace, harmony, and environmental
protection. Naturally, since the entire depth of the ethical
vegetarian movement can be printed on a bumper sticker, then
I knew it wouldn't take long to turn their moral high ground
into quicksand. One need not look any further than the peaceful
Inuit culture and the murderous Nazi movement to expose ethical
vegetarianism for the fraud that it is.
As a quick aside,
I strongly recommend that you peruse Ethical
Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer in
order to understand how warped ethical/biocentric vegetarianism
really is. This book was edited by Kerry S. Walters and Lisa
Portmess. There are chapters in this book covering the following "topics."
- The Ethic of Reverence for Live
- The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism
- All Animals are Equal
- The Right not to be Eaten
- An Ecological Argument for Vegetarianism
Essentially, biocentric vegetarians believe that eating
meat is tantamount to murder. Thus eating meat is at the
root of violence, war, etc. If you take this wacky biocentric "logic" to
heart, then one must conclude killer whales, lions, tigers, cheetahs,
bald eagles, and other carnivorous animals are murderers. Let's
leave it to ethical vegetarians to put these "murderers" on
trial. What language will these "equal" animals choose
to speak in the courtroom? Additionally, how does one accommodate
a killer whale's courtroom needs anyway? Correspondingly, since
I purchase meat at a supermarket, I can't be considered to be a
murderer. However, does this make me an accomplice to countless
murders? At the very least, since all animals (including snails
I suppose) are my equals, doesn't this at least make me a cannibal?
This is all much too confusing. But I digress.
Perhaps I am mistaken?
Biocentric vegetarians would point out to me that predatory
(carnivorous) animals are a part of nature and help keep
ecosystems in balance. Part of maintaining this balance entails
having predators cull weak and infirmed animals from the
gene pool. Indeed, predatory animals play important roles
in nature. It appears that I was hasty in concluding that
lions, tigers, and killer whales should be tried for murder
in a court of law. These impressive predators serve vital
functions in nature.
What still bothers me is that biocentrists
clearly state that all animals (including humans) are equal.
When considering the above-mentioned predatory animals,
biocentrists simply point out that these animals are natural
and are necessary to keep nature in balance. What happens
if a group of biocentrists decide to take on the role of
predator in order to form a more perfect society? "Undesirable" human beings would need
to be exterminated in order to remove them from the gene pool.
Has such a shocking mutation of biocentrism ever emerged? Yes,
but not amongst the meat-eating people of the eastern and central
Arctic (known as the Inuit). This nihilistic biocentric movement
emerged in Europe and its leader was a vegetarian.
Inuit people are known to be among the most peaceful people
on earth. Many of us know them as Eskimos (keep in mind
that the term "Eskimo" is
a Cree Indian word meaning "eaters of raw meat".
This is considered to be a derogatory term by Inuit). In a
great article titled Inuit Culture, I found a wonderful
description of Inuit society and its peaceful nature: Inuit
always had unwritten social laws that were extremely important
to daily life. Most of them still apply today. The Inuit identity
is that of kindness, compassion, giving, caring, helping, concern
for others rather than oneself, laughing and joking, discipline,
endurance, common sense, and most of all, responsibility.
is not surprising that such a peaceful people put a great deal
of emphasis on the family and the community. It struck me that
difficult situations and issues are still resolved at the family
and at the community levels. No need here for faceless and distant
The peaceful nature of Inuit culture includes an
age-old hunting, fishing, and trapping lifestyle that harmoniously
flows with the seasonal cycles of the central and eastern
Arctic. For example, in the spring months of March and
April, seal hunting commences so that Inuit can provide
fresh meat for themselves and their dogs. Moreover, seal
skins are used for making clothing. When summer arrives,
there is great excitement as geese and ducks arrive to
nest which means that eggs can be gathered and that adult
birds can be snared (trapped) at their nests. Goose and duck
meat provide a welcome variety to Inuit diet. Summer also
means that Arctic char are swimming downstream and can
be caught in sufficient volume to provide food for the
winter. Inuit also hunt caribou in August as the fur at
this time of the year makes for the best material from
which to make clothing. As fall arrives, Arctic char are
caught by ice fishing and caribou are hunted inland (as
caribou move inland in the autumn). When the winter months
arrive, there is very little hunting and fishing. Thus,
the meat of the animals Inuit have harvested is cached
(preserved) in the late summer and consumed in the winter.
Inuit are in tune with their environment and live on the
natural resources available to them in the Arctic. One
can see why hunting, trapping, and fishing are integral
to Inuit culture.
Inuit call the above-mentioned foods "country
food". More importantly, Inuit see food as the connector
to everything encompassed by Inuit culture. Celebrations are
food-oriented with caribou stomach and seal blubber serving as
delicacies to be shared with all. As was stated in the Inuit Culture article: "Feasts
are very special because we believe sharing food is an important
part of our culture and is an important link with our heritage.
We believe food makes friends out of strangers. When we eat together,
we feel more harmonious." Country food is still the cornerstone
of the Inuit diet. It is more nutritious and less expensive than
Inuit have great respect for the world in
which they live. As was stated in the Inuit Culture article: "We
live in complete harmony with our environment and take our land
and sea for granted. Nature is there for us, and we will leave
the environment in good condition for our children. What's there
is for us to take but we never abuse the animals and we treat them
with great respect!"
Inuit culture is loving, peaceful, and
respectful. Clearly, it is worthy of our respect.
and foremost, it is important to understand that German National
Socialism (Nazism) was a "green" movement. Adolf Hitler
was a biocentric environmentalist who saw National Socialism (Nazism)
as a religion of nature. Just like a pack of wolves culls a crippled
elk from a herd (thus "purifying" the gene pool), Nazis
sought to reestablish the German people's connection with nature
by reviving primitive agrarian culture and ridding Germany of everything
(and everybody) that was "unnatural". Nazi leaders believed
German society needed to be purified in a manner that promoted
biological fitness through "racial hygiene" and euthanasia.
Hitler and his henchmen played the role of the wolves (culling/managing
the gene pool) while millions of non-Aryans paid with their lives.
If the biocentric credo "a boy, is a dog, is a pig" becomes
politically mutated to where a Jew is no more desirable to nature
(i.e. the German "social ecosystem") than a crippled
elk, then genocide could be justified to "purify" Germany
so that it could be reunified, as a whole, with nature. Nazis
became the predators and undesirable non-Aryans became the
If all of this sounds too shocking to be true, then
I suggest that you read Dr. Alston Chase's fabulous book In
a Dark Wood: The Fight over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology.
Make no mistake, ethical vegetarians and green socialists
(which are closely allied) do not advertise their irrefutable
linkage to Nazism. So here are some more points, from Dr.
Chase's book, that show the frightening parallels between
Nazism and today's ethical vegetarianism and green socialism.
- The Nazis blamed capitalists for driving farmers off the
land and into towns in an effort to obtain cheap labor, thus
undermining rural culture and promoting factory farms that
used poisonous synthetic chemicals.
Soon after seizing power in 1933, the Nazis
launched a ruralization program to create a new, more primitive
Germany. Subdivisions and private property were declared
illegal. It was believed that private property promoted commercialism,
consumerism, and urbanization. Thus, private property lead
people to adopt unnatural and non-German values.
Hitler's Germany became the first European
country to establish nature preserves. Hitler believed that
forests and wildlife, symbolizing Germany's pre-Roman past,
had to be preserved.
Nazis favored organically grown foods and
studied the effects of artificial fertilizers for fear that
they may have degenerative affects.
The training of Nazi SS Troops included a
respect for animals of near Buddhist proportions.
Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler were both
So there you have it, ethical/biocentric vegetarianism can never
be taken seriously as a movement that will lead to world peace.
Clearly, there is a danger in a political movement that accepts
the radical egalitarian concept that all animals are equal. Once
this shocking premise is adopted, political mutations such as
German National Socialism (Nazism) are bound to emerge. In the
case of the Nazis, leaders such as Hitler, Himmler, and Hess
made what appeared to be a logical argument for genocide in the
context of biocentrism. Non-Aryans were the enemy and were systematically
murdered. This genocidal project was necessary (in the Nazi ideal)
to "purify" Germany so that it could be reunified, as
a whole, with nature. Nazis became the "natural" predators
in German society (Hitler's ecosystem).
vegetarianism does not provide a roadmap toward world peace.
The wonderful and peaceful culture of the Inuit and the evil
nature of Hitler's Nazism shall forever provide the evidence
necessary to utterly discredit this silly green-vegetarian movement.
Time to start printing some HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN bumper