The Vegan True Believers

pwd

http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=558

This article reminded me of some of the hostile atitudes I have seen on this forum

Earlier this week on the Fat Head blog, I wrote about the attack on Lierre Keith by some vegan nut-jobs who consider her a traitor and a threat. For those of you who don’t already know, Keith was a dedicated vegan for 20 years but had to rethink her beliefs when her health declined and she realized, after some comical attempts, that she couldn’t grow her own food without killing living creatures. No longer able to hide behind a simplistic, child-like love for nature, she set out instead to understand it. The result was The Vegetarian Myth, in which she argues (brilliantly) that agriculture and a plant-based diet will not make us healthy or save the planet.

Nonetheless, her core values remain the same: she loves animals, she abhors the cruelty of factory farming, and she wants us to feed ourselves in a manner that supports the environment instead of depleting it year after year. As she writes in her book: “What separates me from vegetarians isn’t ethics or commitment. It’s information.”

Ah, but there’s the rub: it’s the information that has made her a target, not the change in her beliefs.

When I heard about the attack, my first reaction was to chalk it up to the “vegan rage” Keith writes about in her book. But after thinking it over, I decided I was confusing a correlation with a cause. Yes, they’re enraged and they’re vegans, but I don’t think they’re enraged because they’re vegans. I think it’s more likely they became militant vegans in the first place because they fit the personality type described so eloquently by Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer. It was published in 1951, but still rings true today.

First, a little background on the author: Hoffer was born sometime around 1900 in New York City to Jewish immigrant parents. His father was cabinet-maker. When Hoffer was five, his mother fell down a flight of stairs while carrying him. She never fully recovered and died two years later. Soon afterwards, Hoffer went blind, perhaps from the emotional trauma. Amazingly, his sight returned when he was 15. Afraid he may go blind again someday, Hoffer educated himself by reading as many books as he could.

After his father died around 1920, Hoffer left for California and worked a series of odd jobs, including a stint as a migrant farm worker, before becoming a longshoreman in San Francisco. When his books became popular, he was dubbed “The Longshoreman Philosopher.”

Deeply troubled by the horrors of Nazism, Fascism, Stalinism, the Holocaust and World War II, Hoffer thought long and hard about the roots of fanatical movements, then began writing down his insights. The result was a slim (176 pages) but brilliant book, The True Believer. If you haven’t read it, I hope you will someday. But in the meantime, here’s a very short summary:

Fanatical movements attract a particular personality type. They are typically dissatisfied with their own lives and have low self-esteem. (Can you say “prone to rage”?) Fanaticism appeals to them because it provides a sense of identity, the ego-boost of idealism, and the psychological comfort of certainty — thus relieving them of the need to resolve life’s doubts, contradictions, and moral ambiguities for themselves.

The appeal of a fanatical movement for this personality type lies only partly in the movement’s stated beliefs; the deeper appeal is in the fanaticism itself. That’s why, as Hoffer noted, fanatical groups often find it easiest to recruit new members from other fanatical groups, even if their beliefs are at odds: Fanatical communists have become fanatical Christians, fanatical Christians have become fanatical Nazis, fanatical Nazis have become fanatical communists, etc. (Plenty of fanatical communists became fanatical environmentalists when communism didn’t work out so well.)

Hoffer labeled these people the True Believers. The need to believe in something — completely, and without question — defines their lives, because fanaticism makes them feel special and important.

Not surprisingly, then, the biggest threat to their identities is doubt. All contrary evidence must be stifled or rationalized out of existence. All logical inconsistencies in their beliefs must be ignored. Anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs is an enemy, and anyone who raises questions about their beliefs must be silenced. (But enough about Al Gore.)

Now, doesn’t that description sound just a wee bit like a militant vegan? Ego boost? Heck yes … I’m now a morally superior human being because I don’t eat animal products.

Sense of identity? Gee, do you think? I once asked a waitress in a restaurant if the pork chops were any good. Turning up her nose just a bit, she replied, “I wouldn’t know. I’m a vegan.” I’m mildly hard of hearing, so at first I thought she said, “I wouldn’t know. I’m a virgin.” After some momentary confusion, mentally rifling through my old catechism lessons looking for a prohibition against virgins eating pork, I figured it out. Either way, it was more than I cared to know about her. “I’ve never tried them” would’ve sufficed.

The comfort of certainty, relieved of the need to resolve life’s moral ambiguities? Most definitely. It’s easy to just declare that a fly and a pig and human being are all equal. (I’ll buy that idea when a pig writes a symphony or a good joke.) It’s a bit tougher to finally admit, as Lierre Keith did, that eating meat enhances your health, then have to deal with the morality of killing to be healthy. The Dalai Lama eats meat now, so I guess he’s got it figured out.

Years ago, I heard Dennis Prager debating some animal-rights nut. Prager asked a hypothetical question: if a boy and a dog are both drowning, who do you save first? The nut wouldn’t answer. He weasled out by saying that since he’s a vegan, he’s strong enough to save both of them. (Then a fly landed on his shoulder, and he fell out of his chair.)

Before anyone gets his or her macramé underwear in a wad, I’m not suggesting all or even a majority of vegans are True Believers. But the ones who throw blood on women wearing furs or smash a pepper-laced pie into an author’s face definitely fit the profile. Here are some quotes from Hoffer himself, with my comments on how they apply to the True Believer nut-jobs who attacked Lierre Keith.

A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.

Bingo. Mentally-healthy vegans don’t scream “murderer!” at meat-eaters. They don’t toss pepper-laced pies at meat-eaters. They just don’t eat meat. (Heck, I even knew a vegan who was married to a meat-eater.) But the True Believer vegans — including the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine — can’t resist minding other people’s business. And when their meddling turns out to be a disaster, as when CSPI harassed restaurants into switching to hydrogenated vegetable oils for frying, it doesn’t faze them a bit. They don’t even admit they were wrong; they just keep meddling.

Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents.

Three men in masks attack a 45-year-old woman from behind. People in the room cheer. Other people praise the attack online. A website posts a video of the attack with the Benny Hill music playing for comic effect. Is that enough unifying hatred for you?

In order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand.

Keith did a bang-up job of pointing this out in her book. She recounted a suggestion by some scientifically illiterate vegan that animals in nature should be separated by a big fence — the carnivores on one side, the herbivores on the other. That way, ya see, there wouldn’t be any killing. Keith then explained, using actual scientific facts, what the result would be: all the animals would eventually starve to death. But this unbelievably stupid suggestion drew nothing but applause from other True-Believer vegans. They were just certain it would work … even the carnivores don’t really have to eat meat, ya see, because dogs and cats sometimes eat grass! In other words, these goofs could only believe what they believed because they had zero understanding of nature.

The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than a deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without.

That’s why anyone who can plant a seed of doubt is such a threat. Lierre Keith isn’t just any ol’ author promoting an omnivorous diet; she’s a former dedicated vegan. She knows all the vegan arguments inside and out, and she now disputes them with facts. She can shake up the beliefs of people whose very identities depend on those beliefs.

Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance.

Yup … I’m pretty sure if you’re satisfied with your own life, you don’t feel the need to toss blood or pepper-laced pies at people who don’t share your beliefs about animal rights — especially considering that 99.9% of all people who’ve ever lived also didn’t share those beliefs.

All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth or certitude outside it. The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation, but from holy writ.

It was experience and observation that caused Lierre Keith to change her mind. Her health failed. Her spine degenerated. She was depressed and fatigued. A Chinese-medicine doctor she trusted told her what she already knew: her vegan diet was killing her. Now she’s sharing those experiences with other vegans, and that’s why the True Believers want to shut her up — her personal story is compelling and some vegans might just believe her.

Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.

Militant vegans dream of a world where everyone is a vegetarian, nobody (and no animal) has to kill to eat, and the planet is saved in the process. If only life could be that pretty. Now Keith is telling them that farming kills countless animals, and mono-crop agriculture — all those lovely fields of wheat, corn and soybeans — is destroying the environment. In other words, you can kill some animals on purpose to eat them, or you can kill even more by farming … but you cannot live in your absolute, perfect world because it’s not possible. She has accepted the compromise — what she refers to as becoming an adult. The True Believers are children, and they can’t stand hearing what mommy has to say.

It is the true believer’s ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger, nor disheartened by obstacles, nor baffled by contradictions, because he denies their existence.

Vegans insist they don’t kill to eat. When someone like Lierre Keith points out that farming kills countless creatures per acre (and remember: a pig, a fly and a human are all equal!), plus countless more who die because the mono-crop farms destroy their environments, the vegans still insist they don’t kill to eat. Well, not really, you see, because … uh … because … well … it’s not really killing because we didn’t do it on purpose! By that logic, we need to pardon everyone who caused a fatal accident by driving drunk — they didn’t mean for anyone to die, after all.

The excuse makes no sense. It’s a contradiction. But the True Believers aren’t baffled by contradictions. They’ll simply shut their eyes and close their ears. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll shove a pepper-laced pie into someone’s face.

When I wrote about the attack on the Fat Head blog, one of my readers left this comment:

I am not at all surprised that this happened in the Bay area, although it could have easily happened on a college campus. This is what happens, though, when the extreme leftists among us (let’s call them what they are) get agitated. Look at the treatment of conservatives on college campuses: That Ann Coulter (love her or hate her) travels with body guards and has nearly been pied is just one more example. There is an element of our society that is all in favor of free speech until they don’t agree with it; then they try to shut it down.

sweet-rasmus

If you are looking for an argument, I'm sure you will get one. Personally, I don't want to take part, so everyone please respect the other posters in your comments, as I will have to get involved otherwise!

Note: there are plenty of arguments in the original link if anyone wants to read/contribute there. Original blog dated March 17th 2010.

smellslikeshoes

I guess I'll take the bait

pwd wrote: »

http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=558

This article reminded me of some of the hostile atitudes I have seen on this forum

The only hostile attitudes that happen on this forum arise when an anti veggie/vegan trolls posts here.
The fact is this is the Vegan & Vegetarian forum, we come in here for veggie related info/recipes etc. not to have our beliefs attacked.

Not surprisingly, then, the biggest threat to their identities is doubt. All contrary evidence must be stifled or rationalized out of existence. All logical inconsistencies in their beliefs must be ignored. Anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs is an enemy, and anyone who raises questions about their beliefs must be silenced.

This paragraph is quite interesting and before I tell you why I'll give a little background on myself. I'm a vegan but I think not eating meat is a very personal choice and I have no interest in trying to convert anyone. I keep my veganism to myself when possible and never mention it unless absolutely necessary.

The reason I find that paragraph quite interesting is, if my veganism is brought up by someone who knows, it often ends up turning into a situation where I end up having to defend myself from what I would consider an attack on me because I don't share their views. This to me sounds very much like the "True Believers" concept in that article, trying to justify their own choices by attacking someone else's.

There are militant paint thrower vegans (who make most vegan's cringe) out there but for every one of them there are a 100 meat eaters who feel the need to attack every vegan they meet views because they aren't the same as their own. Meat eaters are in such a majority compared to veggies we have to deal with these sort of people day in day out and for that reason it's easy to see why some vegans end up the militant paint throwing kind.

Mark Hamill

A lot of this article reads like someone ranting against people who arent afraid to express their opinion. Particularly this line:

Mentally-healthy vegans don’t scream “murderer!” at meat-eaters. They don’t toss pepper-laced pies at meat-eaters. They just don’t eat meat.

betrays the authors dislike of people who have a different opinion but dont shut up about it.
Some vegans dont scream murder at people, some dont throw pies, some just dont eat meat. But some do think that their opinion is important enough to pass on to the rest of world, do believe that meat is murder and should be prevented and can express this without hysterics and violence. Dont get me wrong, there are vegan nut jobs out there, but its confirmational bias to assume that the only vegans who argue their opinion are the ones who are crazy (the crazy ones just end up in the news more).

Militant vegans dream of a world where everyone is a vegetarian, nobody (and no animal) has to kill to eat, and the planet is saved in the process. If only life could be that pretty. Now Keith is telling them that farming kills countless animals, and mono-crop agriculture — all those lovely fields of wheat, corn and soybeans — is destroying the environment. In other words, you can kill some animals on purpose to eat them, or you can kill even more by farming … but you cannot live in your absolute, perfect world because it’s not possible. She has accepted the compromise — what she refers to as becoming an adult. The True Believers are children, and they can’t stand hearing what mommy has to say.

Kind of like saying "people will always die of something might as well accept that and become a serial killer".

The problem with Keiths argument, is that while she maybe right that mono-crops are bad for the enviroment and that farming kills animals, simply giving in to this (her "compromise") hardly makes it better. The article explains a lot about the True Believers ability to close his/her mind to new information, but this, in a way, is what Keith seems to have done. While the crazy people will simply ignore new evidence and become more extreme, Keiths just gave in. She could have taken that information and tried to improve things instead of arguing nonsense in the opposite direction (what, because she is sick and needs some animal derived medicine to live, it means no human can survive on a plant based diet? And even if vegan farming methods are worse than normal methods, you aren't stuck in a dichotomy, you can try other methods besides giving into the old ones which you know aren't particularly better either).

Tar.Aldarion

Astounding lack of logic in her decision. She didn't even understand the idea of least harm that comes with veganism. Basically nonsense.

Shenshen

Ok, nice long essay about fanatical vegans... what about the non-fantaical ones? Where would you classify those? Or run-of-the-mill vegetarians?
Or are you only interested in nut-cases?

MrMojoRisin

I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan myself - I eat fish and other animal products - but I have family and friends who are, and I once dated an Indian girl who was one. She was Hindu, and Hindus practice the principle of non-violence (they call it 'ahimsa'?) being applied to animals, etc. Anyway, going out with her brought me out of my dietary comfort zone, but actually in a good way. Not once did she preach to me, or give me the stink eye, about what I ate during the time we were together, but I found myself making less carnivorous - and healthier actually - food choices of my own accord over time. I quit smoking and improved my lifestyle overall. I think vegetarian food is very nice, although the only vegetarian restaurants I ever ate at were The Quay Co-Op in Cork (their food is fantastic, filling and great value, it has to be said), and a place called 'The Candle Cafe' in New York (equally good food).

Whatever about vegetarianism (which seems normal and achievable, tbh), I think veganism is tough territory - to never eat any animal-derived products in a world that offers limited alternatives (I'm talking ordinary shops off motorways and the preponderance of Joe Soap eateries), is some challenge. But, hey, each to their own and best of luck with it.

I just thought of my sister and how she was saying recently that a long-haul Aer Lingus flight she took didn't have any vegetarian meal alternatives. The choices were either chicken or beef (with trimmings) along with a little pasta salad, a mini bread roll and a little beaker of orange juice that came with it for everyone. When the air stewards came around with the trolley, they guilelessly asked her if she wanted chicken or beef, so she told them she was a vegetarian and they gave her the pasta salad, bread roll, etc, that everyone gets instead. That was her meal for the eight-hour flight. She didn't make a big hoo-ha out of it or anything - she was just telling me about it.

Even though I'm a semi-carnivore myself, I still think it's a bit presumptuous how airlines seem to assume that every single passenger on their flights must be a carnivore.

I think India alone has something like 399 million vegetarians, the US has about three million veggies, the UK has a similar number, and France has around one million vegetarians. So there are bound to be vegetarians boarding flights at any given time, in fairness.

Btw, in the case of my sister and a guy I work with, it doesn't seem like their identities are intertwined with vegetarianism. I have eaten a McChicken sandwich in full view of my sis and she has never said a word about it. If anything, it's myself who talks about it by teasing her, e.g. "Oooh, look! Lovely dead chicken covered in crumbs and lathered in mayonnaise. Yum!", etc. Just taking the p*ss. She only converted to vegetarianism when she was 16, so I'm fairly sure her identity as a person had already been formed by that point. The only 'veggie propaganda' she has sent my way are a list of famous vegetarians (I very was interested to learn that David Bowie apparently is one, amongst others), and a dreadful video from this pro-veggie website called http://www.meat.org/. I haven't eaten much meat since watching that video. Horrific stuff...

Stephen (fella at work) never makes a big song and dance about his dietary choice. I actually only found out about it after 10 months of working together when we were at the work Christmas party and I noticed him eschewing the meat and fish options. He just quietly asked for carrots, parsnips and potatoes only and happily ate that. No bother to him.

I don't know what to make of all this 'True Believer' cack, except that it's a theory that can only be applied to mentally unbalanced fanatics at best.

I still don't know about veganism, but vegetarianism looks alright to me. Plus, interestingly, if I'm being truthful, I have never met an overweight vegetarian. Nor have I met a thick/stupid vegetarian. Maybe those attributes/benefits don't arise from refraining from eating meat and fish per se, but possibly from the healthier lifestyle choices vegetarians seem to make in general. I don't know about the intellect thing though, but I honestly have never met an intellectually stunted, or poorly educated, vegetarian now that I think of it. Obviously I know a fair few intelligent carnivores, but I'm just pointing it out regardless.

But maybe a vegetarian lifestyle could be very handy for halting worldwide obesity, although it's up to each individual to make their own lifestyle choices ultimately.

As for the damage that monocrop farming is doing to the environment... Well, could they not try inter-cropping plots of land with vegetables, fruits and legumes instead? Cabbage, carrots, fruit trees, etc. Legumes would enrich the soil with nitrogen and you'd have about four crops per year simultaneously.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I’ll buy that idea when a pig writes a symphony or a good joke

If that was a joke he's in no position to imply pigs can't make good ones

For someone attacking militant beliefs and practices he's being very aggressive. And accusing vegans of having no balance in their sources and ignoring information that conflicts with their beliefs while using such condescending language to describe them is a bit odd.

Not that fond of the militant folk myself, or of PETA and the like, but live and let live applies to them too. I try not to bring up the issue and try to change the subject if someone pushes me most of the time (I'm just sick of having that conversation), but not everyone with more stamina than me, or with stronger beliefs than me, is an idiot who hasn't thought through the causes and effects of those beliefs.

El_Dangeroso

Hello,

Non-veggie here but want to emphasise that I totally respect people's personal dietary choices.

I think the point of Tom's article was in response to the spamming of his blog by commenters that got pretty personal. He's talking about the same people who several of you wish to distance yourselves from. These people exist in every echelon of society, meat eaters and veggies alike. Some people will always take a good idea and ruin it with dogma.

I don't know if you guys have heard of this but there's a website called 30 Bananas a day that are fruitarian. They have this movement that's called 'Blog Bandits' which is basically there to go to paleo blogs and start arguments. So I think this blog is also a reaction to that.

Tom has several members of his friends and family who are veggies and if you read along the blog he mentions several times that he has no intention of trying to convert them.

I do think the OP was trollin' a little bit though posting this in here, this was not the intended audience I'm sure and I can see how it comes across as preachy in this context, gracious of the mods to allow the debate here. We are all free to live our own lives in accordances to our own beliefs and that should always be respected.

rantyface

"A Chinese-medicine doctor she trusted told her what she already knew: her vegan diet was killing her."

Does nobody else think that is strange? If I was here I would have looked for a second opinion from a real doctor who could have done some scientific tests and shown me some literature on the problem.

I'd be suspicious of anyone who sells sick people placebos derived from rare animals.

Mark Hamill

rantyface wrote: »

"A Chinese-medicine doctor she trusted told her what she already knew: her vegan diet was killing her."

Does nobody else think that is strange? If I was here I would have looked for a second opinion from a real doctor who could have done some scientific tests and shown me some literature on the problem.

I'd be suspicious of anyone who sells sick people placebos derived from rare animals.

I hadn't even noticed that.
Whats more strange is why she went to a chinese medicine doctor as vegan in the first place. Outside of maybe chinese acupuncture, all the medicines are made from animals (hell, even the acupuncture needles may be bone, if the doctor is traditional enough), so what exactly did she, as a vegan, expect to get?

gbee

It would seem that this post should really be in the religion section!

I personally never thought of Vegetarians/Vegans as being in another faith, but now that I understand that, and understand that they use this forum for sharing diets and recepies, etc. I'd like to comment, but I now don't think the OP should really be here.

Irish Guitarist

I'm not sure why I read all that but I did and it was a load of nonsense. The part where he compares veganism to Nazism makes about as much sense as when people say "Hitler was a vegetarian" as an argument against vegetarianism.

hyenabutter

FFS what an amazing amount of the usual anti-vegan bull****.
I know that animals die for my consumption, and if I could avoid it I would. But if you did not want to kill anything you have to kill yourself, as you would have to stop walking (because you step on insects) and going by bike (the other day I killed a fly by swallowing it, not nice)
It is about causing as little harm as possible.
Also, the "carnivore/herbivore - fence" argument lacks substance. A wolf can't eat and digest (only, if at all) plants while I can. I know this and thus never used this stupid bull**** with "but the carnivores do it as well!" (which sounds a bit like the average kindergarten child "but Seán was allowed to do it as well, so why can't I?")
Whatever. Would hear new things at some stage.

Mark Hamill

gbee wrote: »

It would seem that this post should really be in the religion section!

I personally never thought of Vegetarians/Vegans as being in another faith, but now that I understand that, and understand that they use this forum for sharing diets and recepies, etc. I'd like to comment, but I now don't think the OP should really be here.

True believerism isn't an inherently religious notion. It is, usually, most clearly visible in religious circles (hence the name), but it can apply to anything from natural healing to football to vegetarianism. You can find idiots in any walk of life who will latch onto ideas to make themselves feel more important than everyone else and will view any rebuttal to their idealogy as a personal attack. The problem with the OP is that the article writer clearly wasn't just talking about vegan true believers (who do exist) but any veggie who expressed their opinion. Me thinks the original author is a bit of a "True Believer" himself (of the meat eating variety).

pwd

I reheated a nice lentil curry at lunch today.
I was asked if I was a vegetarian.
I said no; I just liked my nice lentil curry.