SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

San Francisco | Animal Liberation

Veg*n Antagonist Lierre Keith Pied in the Face at 2010 SF Anarchist Bookfair
by nothing with a face
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:02 AM
Bound Together Books and PM Press continue to try to prop up and foist veg*n antagonist Lierre Keith onto the radical community in the Bay Area. Today, at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair, where she was scheduled to be a featured speaker, Keith was served her just deserts for her obnoxious attacks on veg*ns in The Vegetarian Myth. She was pied in the middle of her speech in the main auditorium at the SF County Fair Building in Golden Gate Park.
lierrekeithpiedatanarchistbookfair.jpg
lierrekeithpiedatanarchis...

The myriad logical fallacies and other personal, logical, and factual problems with Lierre Keith's misanthropic book need not be reiterated here. A thorough debunking of her attack on veg*ns was posted on Indybay last June when Bound Together Books first invited her to speak about her book.

Lierre Keith's Elaborate, Self-Congratulatory Excuse for Abandoning Veganism
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/12/18601536.php

If her book had been written as a good faith effort to start a discussion about the topics of vegetarianism and industrial agriculture, it certainly would not have evoked such a visceral reaction from veg*ns. But that's not how Keith addressed the subject. She instead chose to rebuke her own former vegan self by verbally assaulting all veg*ns, calling them ignorant and child-like, sometimes based on nothing more than dishonest accounts of anonymous online comment threads or her own self-loathing.

Phony environmentalist omnivores like her buddy Derrick Jensen -- who farcically claimed the "book saved my life” -- might find the gratuitous attacks on veg*ns self-satisfying or validating, but the insults and invective directed against veg*ns have been taken, not surprisingly, quite personally by veg*ns everywhere who are aware of the book, sometimes by having had it thrown in their faces by those who mistakenly believe the book to be the last word on vegetarianism. And surely it was a reaction to these attacks that led the culprits of the pieing to feel compelled to take symbolic action against Lierre Keith at the very moment she was being held up as a paragon of radical thought by Bound Together Books at this year's Anarchist Bookfair, normally a vegetarian-friendly venue.

Some will condemn the pieing as a useless symbolic action. Others will object to the breaking of decorum at the bookfair. Many of those who might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise. It is doubtful if her book were "the anarchist myth" or "prison activist myth" that anyone present would do anything but cheer the action.

Some will undoubtedly argue that the pieing was an attack on free speech, but Keith has been afforded more speech than most people on the planet will ever be, courtesy of PM Press. In fact, she is profiting from the soap box she has been given to pretend she is a radical environmentalist who just happens to jet around the country to and from her home in rural Massachusetts. In a world where vegans and vegetarians are a definite minority, face constant bombardment with pro-meat messages our American cattle culture, and frequently have to deal with direct attacks from government, law enforcement, and multinational corporations that profit from the sale of factory-farmed meat and dairy, Ramsey Kanaan of PM Press, himself a long-time vegan, strangely chose to pile on with yet another attack on veg*ns, this time being especially traumatic in that it comes from the inside of the supposed radical environmental movement. (Was the book printed in part to curry favor with Derrick Jensen who now publishes through PM Press?) Through the Bound Together collective, of which Ramsey Kanaan is a member, Lierre Keith has been asked to speak in the Bay Area repeatedly. The mean-spirited book and these speaking engagements are largely one-way conversations with Keith dominating the dialogue.

But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up and refused to allow PM Press and Bound Together to yet again try to cram Lierre Keith down our throats. They stood up for many who have suffered silently, without a voice, since the publication of her book. We don't want what you are serving.

§Lierre Keith's Bay Area tour
by nothing with a face Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:02 AM

She didn't finish her speech today, having left the bookfair after being pied. It is unknown if she made the later appearance tonight or if she will follow through with the final local engagement. Undoubtedly, she's been given some food for thought.
by nothing with a face
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:26 AM
She promotes the Weston A. Price Foundation in her book. This is a DC-based lobbying group whose members consist of "farmers", which of course means they breed, confine, and kill animals in order to sell their parts and fluids for profit.

Keith made the Weston A. Price Foundation the first resource listed, which she describes as "Hands down, the best nutrition site on the web." Nor is it denied that this is an anti-vegetarian, anti-soy pressure group. Keith writes that the Foundation "does political advocacy, like lobbying against the soy industry."

Weston A. Price was a dentist who traveled the world measuring people's noses to develop his own bizarre phrenological theories about what he called "primitive" peoples and nutrition. From that he determined that people need to eat more butter, and to this day the Foundation in his name promotes increased butter consumption.

Lierre Keith promotes an anti-vegetarian DC lobby group, the Weston A. Price Foundation. And PM Press and Bound Together promote Lierre Keith.
by m wingnut
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:46 AM
Me and several of my friends were in the audience, not because we agreed with the speaker, but because we wanted to hear and try to understand her arguments. Unfortunately, she was chased from the room before she got the chance to explain much about her book. Without being able to guess as to what she was about to say, I will point out that she was attacking and condemning the practice of factory farming as she was attacked. (Which actually made it look as if the pie-ers were upset at her decrying the torture of animals.)

Thanks for making sure that I didn't get to hear anyone who disagreed with your way of life. God forbid we ever engage in healthy debate now and then.
by mac9
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:55 AM
wow, pie someone in the face who is against factory farming. taking the movement to new heights with ever more thoughtful tactics and engagement.

i've read her book. it's isn't just some anti-vegan diatribe. she's thoughtful, argues well, and has much experience with the world of veganism. at least read the fkn book before being such pricks with the pie. damn.

by ChillyWak
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 6:35 AM
Thank-you Lierre for doing the hard work. That you for standing up in the face of militant pathologies. I have found your book a welcome respite on my journey to eating as nature intended. Bravo!
by me
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:18 AM
The pies used to attack Lierre Keith were heavily laced with hot pepper and effectively she was pepper sprayed in the eyes, etc. This post claims PM Press & Bound Together have "crammed" Lierre "down our throats" -- which I think goes a long way toward showing the bizarre and warped mind set of the middle-class toxic fetuses responsible for this attack. This apparently was carried out by a group of young people of privilege who have never had to deal with much hardship of any kind, and who have had to opportunity to sit around and dream up theories about the earth and universe that they desperately can't abide any challenge to, from any quarter, no matter how well meaning. They remind me of some super politically correct counter-culture friends I used to have back in the 60's. I could never measure up their ideas of what was "right" and they were fairly brutal to those who could not measure up. Every one of them crashed and burnt in some bizarre way. The worst example was a couple who had every leftist and radical principle lined up perfectly. When they faced one too many challenges they totally freaked out, decided that radicalism itself was the problem, and became born-again conservative Christians, which they remain to this day. Who needs friends or allies like this? I make no argument against factory farms. In fact, I'm against "factory" anything and against most of what passes for organized civilization and am probably a "primitivist". I don't even think human life is intrinsically any more valuable than other animal life (but then neither does the fox who eats the bird). Vegans and animal-rights activists who think their particular narrow focus is the be all and end all are cut from the same mold. They'll never make it unless they make some effort to learn a lot more stuff or at least comprehend different paradigms.

I think Lierre does miss a few things but her attackers certainly miss her clear critique on the business of food production (animal, grain, etc.) and how it's literally destroying the earth at a rapid pace. What these kids can't comprehend is that the admirable act of saving a pig from torture will, in no way, save the earth and all it's inhabitants from ruin at the hands of "civilization" as we know it today. Time to broaden your scope or just give up I think.

Oh, and before you begin to attack me here's some typical stuff to go on: I used one phrase above that was once uttered by George Bush and 2 words once used by Hitler. I should be burned at the stake immediately.
by awake
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:23 AM
There was absolutely NO REASON to pie a fellow comrade, especially if she made you feel bad with words in her book..

AWW.. POOR VEGAN BABIES got their feelings hurt.... boo FUCKING hoo.

IT IS OK TO EAT MEAT:

1) Our teeth and digestive systems (as well as the rest of our bodies) evolved on meat

2) As long as the meat isn't factory farmed

3) As long as we care for the continuation of the species (Jensen)

4) Indigenous peoples around he world consume meat

5) Meat is the only source of heme which our body needs

Plus, FUCK YA'LL vegans for trying to be all moral and shit, trying to say we shouldn't eat meat.
Like Immortal Technique said, being vegan isn't revolutionary at all, it's a fucking dietary choice.
by a witness
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:29 AM
No one has mentioned yet that the first thing she said after being pied was "Call the cops." Sure enough, twenty minutes or so after she had cleaned off, many people saw her surrounded by a small group of supporters filing a police report, right in front of the bookfair.
by hmm
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:36 AM
Are you sure it wasn't someone else?

Why would the movement divide it's own... even if there are disagreements?

by RW
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:37 AM
She was violently assaulted . . . of course she called the fucking cops.

You people (whoever did it, whoever posted the original message above, and whoever justifies or celebrates this attack on Lierre) are pathetic, cowardly, sadistic assholes.

And way to pile it on by reproducing a photo of her assault and humiliation. Maybe you should get yourself a job with Larry Flynt.
by ert
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:41 AM
It's ONLY assault IF there was peppery spray in the pie.

Otherwise, a pie in the face is good fun.

But not to another comrade.

She didn't deserve that... I wanted to hear the rest of what she had to say....
In her book, Lierre attacks vegetarians for having eating disorders and other mental disorders. She says claims that any sadness or anger on their part is due to... guess what? a lack of protein! Thanks Lierre, for pushing another sexist agenda saying that women's anger is down to biology! Or maybe she got pied because her book is also racist... ignoring the all non-western cultures eating a vegetarian diet. (For those who were there, maybe it was the person who introduced her that pied her! - I wouldn't blame him.) Or maybe she got pied because she was a founding (and continuing) member of RadLesFes, a group that characterizes trans-women as having "surgical, chemical or psychological mutilation". When you pathologize people in this way, you are going to make some fast enemies.

There will be plenty of opportunity to hear her speak, if you really want to. But someone this abusive, who declared "I don't care about anarchists" and proceeded to call the cops to an anarchist conference had no business being at the bookfair. Maybe pieing isn't the best idea in the world, but if it outs a cop-sympathizer, it is a necessary evil. I hope she never comes to an anarchist event again.
by a witness
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:35 AM
I do not know that she specifically is the person who called the cops.

However, I do know that I saw her talking to an officer for about ten minutes in front of the bookfair. He was quite obviously taking down a report, and I saw him hand her a piece of paper before he left.
by a
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:39 AM
Was there pepper spray or not?

All these other allegations have nothing to do with what she was talking about during her speech.


*And I think that previous comment of her being racist is unfounded.
by feralandradical
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:00 AM
To those who pied Lierre Keith: Your "self-congratulatory" note of ASSAULTING an ALLY was... fucked up, and flat-out wrong. Sorry, but you lose this argument. If you were part of my community, I'd vote you leave (banished) for highly abusive behavior.

Let me remind you, this was THREE (young) MEN assaulting a 45 YEAR OLD WOMAN! This is MISOGYNY and disgusting behavior. I am very anti-police, but anyone who demonizes someone for calling the police for a MAN ON WOMAN attack, seriously has their priorities fucked up, and is without a doubt anti-woman. Let's not let the police oppress, but goddamn it, if they can be utilized to SOMETHING/ANYTHING useful (like preventing very REAL, very TRAUMATIZING abuse), then so be it.

Stop being so immature. We're supposed to be allies (and diet, like others have said, is not revolutionary - actually fighting power is, not shooting yourself in the foot), but now I have less faith than ever in the people involved in the "movement". The only movement this makes in the favor of those IN POWER. So thank you (sarcasm) for aiding the enemy.

Seriously, grow up so we can start being effective.

by @
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:06 AM
It wasn't "pepper spray" but it was cayenne pepper, which is essentially the same thing. Using the cops' tools -- guns, pepper, clubs -- for self defense is one thing but cayenne pepper to the eyes of an author at the anarchist bookfair is just sadistic, and pathetic, if you ask me.
by veg*n
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:16 AM
Ya know, people must have known this attack was possible. I assumed someone briefed her. I assumed people were there to protect her. I stayed in the back to avoid any conflict. Failure.

It was such a bad cartoon.

She was just beginning to speak about factory farming of animals, too. Her talk to that point was a plea for understanding how unsustainable modern agriculture is, and how harmful it is to ecosystems.

Evidently her attackers' point is that she found some personalities in the Vegan/Vegetarian 'community' obnoxious so they wanted to prove how much more obnoxious they really are?

They clearly didn't hear her underlying theme of compassion and truly engaging what's there. Left me wishing I'd been near the front and mentally prepared to pick one of those kids up and carry him to the stage to explain himself.

I can sympathize with the speaker as my years of being strictly vegetarian and sometimes vegan did suffer for divisiveness from all sides, within and without. Food is about life and about sharing. She is right on when she says it's not as simple as the simplified ingredients list of the pile on your plate. I would add the spiritual and cultural components to the life cycle analysis of monocrop farming.

Whatever her faults, it left me hoping that those who failed her can at least give some support in the aftermath. I wasn't able to make contact with her although I tried several things. (And yes, she could have handled it much better as well, such as considering in advance whether to involve police, although if she really had hot sauce in her eyes, which did appear to be on the pies, it adds another dimension; plus, the attackers hit her fairly hard; not just a symbolic pieing it was cowardly violence.)
by Ben
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:40 AM
Perhaps filing a police report wasn't the best response. But how every so-called "anarchist" present stood by, idly, while 3 young men attacked a women without giving them a boot party is beyond me. You people aren't anarchists, you're Stalinists with a black flag. Don't despoil the party line.
by sosanista
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:19 PM
What? Nobody intervened? Nobody grabbed the perps? A room full of so called anarchists lets a woman be assulted by 3 men and nobody stands up to it? I'm disgusted. Lierre's book is well reasoned, well researched and balanced and it's a call for a compassionate way of living. To the Anarchist's who did this it's called dialogue you had an opportunity at a public event to question, cross examine Keith's book and you took the lowest possible road exposing your own pathology.
by hlda
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:21 PM
yeah - Ward Churchill will be speaking at the fair today at 4pm.
Like Keith, Churchill has had radical critiques of animal rights actions and philosophy, specifically speaking against animal rights groups hazing the tribes using a treaty right to hunt marine mammals in the strait of Juan de Fuca. Several prominent animal rights activists who participated in this are now serving time in jail, such as Josh Harper, and Thurston(?).

Did you realize that he is probably in town this weekend because he's also speaking at a cultural sovereignty meeting in Mendocino county in a few days. The set of 3 or 4 people who constantly post on Indybay against the no-take marine reserves being planned for northern California say that Churchill opposes the reserves (even though the legal documents actually do recognize indigenous hunting and gathering rights). Additionally, Churchill has many statements through his books challenging hegemonic enforcement of a dominant culture's pets/meat rules on

So, in order to be consistent regarding retaliation, will this group try to hurt Churchill as well? I bet not. I mean, he's not a slender woman and does have personal security attachments, plus all the references to firearms. Hmm.. food for thought.

I saw the three people hit her in the face with the pepper mixture, as I sat on the right side of the room, and nobody was able to get up and move to block it during that 5 seconds that it took them to run out the door. The cayenne pepper element was an added touch, reinforcing that they weren't just trying to shame her, but they really really hate her. And because Lierre Keith (who is *published* by Derrick Jensen) is a prominent environmental radical, you send of signals that you don't need anything from their circle; in other words, you are drawing a strong line between ELF and ALF.
For the people chiming in with support for this action, perhaps you might evaluate whether your circle actually needs something from anarchists. Did you realize that many labor, legal, countercultural-lifestylist and environmental anarchists privately consider some animal rights people to be subtly parasitical - always taking and rarely contributing to other movement causes. Animal rights folks seem to always get caught for the dumbest shit, and have huge legal bills that they're collecting money for - whine whine whine - the AETA 4 are in trouble because they are suspected of setting the house on fire of a stem cell researcher, with children inside, silently in the morning, just before firebombing the car of a neighbor of a researcher of effects of heavy metals on human health. It was free speech. send money to this address. But screw Lierre.

By the way, you ought to at least read her book in the library. Her biology is pretty solid.
by everyman
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:30 PM
Unbelievably idiotic behavior on the part of these young men. Kieth has written a thought provoking book which helped me and many others rethink some of the fallacious dogma surrounding veg*ism. This disgusting behavior on the part of those who happen to disagree with her only indicates she has made powerful points which strike a nerve for those whose identities are tied up in the church of veganism. Can't refute her points so you resort to violence. Amazing stupidity.
by Scot
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:33 PM
What occurred was an abusive display of horizontal hostility. Assault with the intent of causing pain and injury. Not good fun. Not healthy debate.

To the perps: This is no movement... you are members of a lifestyle cult. Oh, how I wish I could join your elitist, pain free, cruelty-free club. Do you sense the irony in all of this?! You attacked a defenseless 45-year-old woman at the very moment she was speaking out AGAINST factory farming. Were you listening? Did you even read Lierre's book?!
by Urban Scout
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:36 PM
This behavior is insane, and not surprising. I don't understand why people are all like, "don't call the cops". What other accountability is there? Are there anarchists who will hunt down these three assholes and beat the fuck out of them? I didn't think so. As much as I wish I could beat the fuck out of people who harass women (and men) like this, I'd end up going to jail when they called the cops on me. That's sort of the joke of anyone saying "don't call the cops". It comes from a privileged position of not being the one who got fucked with. Let's fuck with you and see what choices you have. It's easier to bitch at someone for calling the cops then it is to come up with a different choice that brings balance and justice. Not that cops do that, but it's the only choice we have cultural support for.

I completely stand behind Lierre. If it wasn't obvious already. I say let's not let this kind of bullshit happen again. Let's get serious about defending ourselves from psychotic people like this. Ideas?
by c'mon
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:42 PM
that was a real stretch to try and build a case that the pieing was sexist

Churchill may have been critical about a specific action or actions, but I don't imagine that had Keith merely been critical of vegetarianism at times she would have been pied.

lots of people are critical of animal rights and don't get pied, male and female. just look at some of comments here from many people who obviously are only here because they were emailed about this post

Keith directly attacked vegetarianism and animal rights activists as whole, based her entire book on it, and she should not be surprised when some react unpleasantly to her attack
by c'mon
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:45 PM
what did you think of the water being poured on the RCP table at last year's fair?

lots of books and pamphlets were permanently destroyed when that action was taken

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/03/14/18577270.php

by Fish
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:13 PM
Is that really a mature response to what she has to say? Throwing a pie (or cayenne pepper) in someone's face?

Immature and ignorant bastards.
by Fish
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:17 PM
An appropriate response.
by Shusli
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:22 PM
Lierre Keith was ASSAULTED by three brutal people. She was physically injured because of the substance within the "pie".

Assaulting a woman is an act of misogyny. You pure-minded, fundamentalist, vegan nazi have now stooped to using the methods of the oppressive dominant culture that you pretend to decry.

Whatever message you think you have given is drowned out by the fact that you are misogynists.
by Dak
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:26 PM
You know, nothing with a face, the post you made does sound like you did that to her. Whether you did that or not, what you had said about her which is one of reasons why I quitted being a vegan and left violent, fascistic vegan community for good. Mahatma Ghandi said it best, "I have known many meat eaters to be far more nonviolent than vegetarians".

However.. is that what the best response you and your pie-throwing buddies came up with? Typically, but lame nonetheless.
by For Justice
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:51 PM
i would have also preferred that the three punks (and i don't mean that in the good sense ! ) been tackled , their masks ripped off and their faces photgraphed (along with whatever names were on their id ) Then marched to the door and tossed out .
And i would like their names and photos widely circulated and they be barred from any progressive event .
UNLESS they make a sincere public apology and pledge never to do actions like that again .
My two cents . While i can't condemm calling the cops in any and all circumstances (given the power dynamics in this country ) I think the above would have been far preferable .
by .
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 1:57 PM
umm isnt this just proof of some of the points vegans are mad at her for making?

FUNDAMENTALISTS PSYCHOS OF ANY KIND, RELIGION, CREED, SHOULD BE EXTERMINATED.
by Voice of the Voiceless
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:11 PM
I'm interested in publishing a statement from (or anonymous interview with-) those responsible for the pieing. If any statement is circulating, or will be forthcoming, please email.

http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org
info [at] voiceofthevoiceless.org
by anon
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:23 PM
using words like "defenseless" for this woman is really patronizing. I think her book is crap but don't think she deserves to be pied for that. She deserves to be pied for being a snitch. The bookfaire folks should have never allowed her to call the police. Violent attack? violent? What kind of world are you living in?It was a pie not a bullet. That's the whole point of pieing.
by a1
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:29 PM
person who called this a misogynist attack: ever think that this wasn't all male-bodied people? IT WASNT!

person who suggested ripping the masks of the people who did it: fuck you! lierre keith called the cops and that's more fucked up that throwing a pie at some wingnut!
by diana
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:35 PM
It wasn't a pie; it was cayenne pepper in her eyes, and it was an absolutely cowardly attack by three men on a disabled woman (disabled *by veganism* with a spine like swiss cheese), sneaking up behind her. You're proud of yourselves for THAT?
by .
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:39 PM
Lierre Keith says she didn't thrive under veganism due to an interaction between nutritional deficiencies and genetic predisposition(?), and has a degenerative bone disorder resulting from this time. She wrote that switching her diet improved her sense of well-being rather quickly.
by Chris
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:42 PM
I wanted to go see Lierre Keith today at the library, but was unable. I am vegan and I am curious about what she has to say. I don't like the name of her book because personally I have to deal with lots of questions, jokes, criticism, and ignorance around my veganism. A book titled the Vegetarian Myth will give those same folks (who would likely never read it) more so-called ammunition to attack me and my choice with shallow, baseless, ignorant claims becasue the title alone implies their rightness and my wrongness. But because I don't like the title doesn't mean I won't go try to understand what she is saying and decide for myself if there is anything of value there. I would never have pied the woman or encouraged anyone else to—as a vegan, I believe in non-violence.

I do find all these angry, anti-vegan comments startling. Did an actual vegan claim responsibility for this act? If so, could someone post a link so I could read what they had to say about their motivations? If not, would all you anarchists mind refraining from making assumptions and following with insulting derogatory remarks about vegans in general. It's not beyond reason to imagine that pieing her might benefit someone, other than vegans, is it? All the anger expressed toward vegans within these comments really make me question who did this and why. I don't suppose there's one cynic out there that realizes saying it was three young, privileged, male vegans and saying vegans are crazy, self-centered, non-revolutionary babies might be *good* for the lady author who is apparently criticizing vegans and veganism. Are any of you folks that are so upset with the "privileged male vegans" for "not even reading the book" willing to investigate the claims made by folks who are opposed to what she says, namely the connections to Weston Price and their specific history and agenda?

Not only am I vegan, I'm against monoculture, big agriculture, and environmental destruction. I have studied other ways to restore the Earth that do not require humans to eat sentient beings deserving of our respect and protection. I'm all for eliminating the status quo when it comes to agricultural destruction, but there are plenty of ways to do that without criticizing vegetarians or vegans who care about both the Earth and the ethics of not eating other beings that cannot defend themselves against attacks from folks like Ms. Keith. Come on anarchists (I am not an anarchist, btw), I expected you all to be smarter, more aware of history, and more suspicious and cynical about things that come across like this; too obvious and too simple. The fact that almost all the comments mention she was just about to speak about factory farming are especially amusing as any vegan with a pie would have waited for an appropriate moment, not just hastily throw at one that would benefit her and her supporters in continuing to speak out against vegans.
by Bryce Lee
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:42 PM
Thank goodness these brave guys had the courage to assault this woman. More so, thank goodness they had the good sense and honesty to do so anonymously.

If we keep letting her discuss her issues openly, allowing her arguments to stand for themselves, then people might actually change their minds.

We can't have that.

No! It's time to mobilize, to silence dissenting voices, and to humiliate people who, through years of personal suffering, are motivated to share their personal revelations with others.

Thank goodness there were three of these men. Strength in numbers is always essential when you attack women with degenerative spine diseases.

Viva la vegelucion . . .
by p.mama
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:43 PM
Wow, sure doesn't say much about the vegan community does it? Or does it?

I'm glad to hear it was just a pie, albeit, a cayenne pepper one. The action, does, however, closely resemble the type of actions which radical groups partake in, in an attempt to scare those who don't believe in the same things they do. What have we got here, food terrorists?

Shame on you.
by Rick
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:52 PM
As someone who has heard Lierre interviewed on numerous occasions and been repeatedly inspired by her passion, I thank all of you who have been defending her even if you do not agree with her.

Putting cayenne pepper in the eyes of a disabled woman armed with only her voice is an indefensible act. To those of you who are condoning this act, its time to take a REAL good look in the mirror. What do you think you are accomplishing with this behavior? Have you no sense and no shame?
by Rose Tomen
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 2:59 PM
nothing without a face writes: "But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up"

Anonymous masked peoples? Seriously? It's written as if that's a *good* thing! There is nothing more anyone needs to know about the character of the juvenile posers who carried out this ridiculous attack. If you can't make your point in the open, without needing to hide your identity, then your "points" are moot, irrelevant. Listen kiddies, leave the debate to the adults. You little juvenile posers can go play with yourselves until you grow up and can make a point while showing your face and without resorting to schoolyard tactics. This whole charade smacks of nothing more than a child having a tantrum.
by diana
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:01 PM
If there's anyone in this movement with a functional spine, then these three need outed, names, addresses and photos, thank you, and then ousted. Can you do that? Or are you going to be cowardly, too?

If you can't fathom why this action was misogynist, you probably are one. If you can't understand why a thin 45-year old woman, disabled from a diet she valiantly followed in order to not cause immiseration to other beings, and who later wrote a gentle, tactful and caring book about how this diet doesn't accomplish any of the things people hope it will, who was attacked from behind by three men with cayenne, could have accepted police help, your brain isn't functioning. Fix it, for your own good. Because it doesn't matter to me. If you come after my sister again, you will need to understand that I am meaner, angrier, and older enough that I have little to lose -- and I was only vegetarian for half the time she was vegan, so my spine is absolutely fine. Don't fuck with my sister. Just don't.
by Monsieur Tofu
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:03 PM
It isn't a "juvenile tactic", it's a tactic with a long and brilliant history. Just google "Anita Bryant" and "pie" for a little taste of it (pun definitely intended). Sure, it would have been better if the pie-ers had worn colorful costumes but not much can be done about that now.
I also wouldn't buy her cayenne pepper claim off hand. Kieth has a real problem with basic honesty.
by Chris
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:05 PM
People who who physically assault those who dare to disagree with them deserve no respect. They are facists, pure and simple.
by 000
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:10 PM
I was there when the 3 cowards (men) came up behind this woman and attacked her. I was shocked by the realization of what happened, and I can only imagine how she felt about it.

I consider this attack to be cowardly, juvenile and fascistic. This is brown shirt tactic that was intended to silence debate and discussion, in an environment that was meant to explore all ideas. Keith was a guest of the bookfair, not some fucking corporate CEO. The disrespect that these cowards displayed will only encourage me to seek out her arguments in more detail.

I don't know Keith personally, and as a vegetarian for 24 years, I probably don't agree with her arguments, BUT I WANTED TO HEAR THEM. I wanted to hear them to challenge my position, and most likely reaffirm it. But no, a bunch fucking childish brown shirts shut down the discussion because they think they have the moral superiority to enforce only their point of view.

Furthermore, this action only demonstrates that those who did it are incapable of defending themselves in room full of nearly 100 people. They lack the ability to articulate their position in a room full of their peers.

So let me just be clear, YOU ARE FUCKING COWARDS, and 3 men attacking a small woman from behind certainly demonstrates that.

Please do us a favor, and leave the anarchist movement so the rest of us can get on with saving the planet from capitalism.
by Anon
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:48 PM
From animal liberation site Voice of the Voiceless, calling Keith an "animal holocaust denier":

"Predictably, the choir of opposition to this action so far is a collection of vegan regressors, “rewild” fetishists / weekend-warrior primitivists, and those who hide behind an “anything goes” neuvo-anarchist critique - all of which breed the culture of degeneracy and hedonistic caveman role-playing that give Lierre Keith her only audience.

A disrupted speech is trivial in comparison to the billions of deaths this woman promotes, but yesterday’s resistance to this death-merchant will undoubtedly give Keith some (vegan) “food for thought” while she travels the country, promoting the consumption of animals."

http://www.voiceofthevoiceless.org/animal-holocaust-denier-pied-at-book-fair/

by Furious
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:53 PM
This is pretty much what I expect from fascist vegan fundamentalist assholes. Heaven forbid that someone disagree with you and point out errors in the half-assed emotionality that you mistake for thinking! May your teeth all rot out (most vegans' teeth do) and you suffer from the myriad deficiency related diseases for your sins of stupidity. Meanwhile, leave the rest of us alone to pursue our health and happiness!
by anonn
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 3:59 PM
I for one say it's about time someone stood up for the factory farmers of this country and railed against the tyranny of the anti-factory farming fanatics and their radical agenda.
by DH
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 4:06 PM
I have often visited Bound Together and referred lots of friends there. If they're promoting this awful woman and her terrible book, I will no longer support them. I encourage all other vegans to boycott as well.
by asdf
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 4:24 PM
Fair enough. You might also want to boycott Bound Together for the fact that they are Nambla (National Man/Boy Love Association) sympathizers who actively promote pedophiles, sexual assault and abuse through the sale of the Nambla bulletin in the store.
by really?
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 4:34 PM
does everything you dislike have to be compared with nazis? do you even know what the word fascist even actually means?

correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the brown shirts known for something else besides pieing people? maybe I'm confusing them with someone else and pieing was their big claim to fame

as for Keith being a guest of the bookfair, we should be clear. she was a guest of the bookfair ORGANIZERS who dictate who will speak. it's not a democracy and attendees didn't take a vote and choose Keith. do not forget either that the publisher of her book, amongst the organizers, stands to make a profit by pushing its authors at the great anarchist shopping mall
i think this was hella lame, and you have far outdone lierre keith in logically fallacious, elaborate self congratulation. grow the fuck up already and go liberate some mink if you really care, instead of wasting perfectly good food hassling some primitivist no one probably cares about anyway.
by really?
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 4:43 PM
Keith, who "splits" her time between coasts (her words) flying back and forth, who promotes the Price DC lobby group for farming capitalists, who profits personally from her book, THAT Keith is saving the planet from capitalism? that's rich

I guess she'll zip around in the skies on an anarchist airline and the Weston Price folks she just adores will close down their lobbying efforts and convert their farms to worker-owned co-ops

how 'bout you leave the movement for not even beginning to connect the dots before you speak
by 000
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 4:57 PM
Definition of fascism varies, but Robert Paxton, a leading researcher on the subject defines it as:

"Fascism is a system of political authority and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities in which liberal democracy stands accused of producing division and decline.

A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."


While these cowards are not strictly fascists, the reference to brown shirts holds, and how ironic that elements of that definition by Paxton actually applies to members of the Vegan Religion. The foot soldiers of fascist movements use tactics to silence debate, create fear, and disrupt community meetings based on ideological grounds. I think that is very accurate assessment of what these cowardly assholes did.

I support the organizers decision to have Keith there, and I was looking forward to hearing her talk PRECISELY because I disagree with her. Fundamentalists brown shirt cowards (men) have to attack a tiny women from behind in order to protest her thesis. You fucking scumbags didn't have to attend the bookfair if you didn't want to. FUCK OFF and do your own thing.

And usually when little middle class kids start ranting and raving about the "capitalists" at the bookfair, its clear they have never done anything in their lives INSIDE the capitalist system. I am sure they all live independently out in a commune where they grow all their own food and never touch anything that involves money. You are so pure that your shit doesn't stink. Yea right.

FUCK OFF you lifestylist cowards.

Signed,
Anarchist and Vegeterian
by Shusli
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 5:31 PM
Whoever said that it had to be males who assaulted Lierre in order for it to be a misogynist act? Woman can be guilty of misogyny, too.
I just printed my own newspaper...Holler from the Rooftops...wherein I bemoan how 'we' haven't built a mass org since the 80's when we knew all THE SHIT was gonna get worse....and I feel like a little cancer that I am.
Cuz what the fuck are you anarchists doing? STILL worried about what people eat, and how people travel..and some individual that wrote a book ...who you don't agree with?
fucking hell. I quote from the book in my paper, and didn't agree with half what she says. YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND IS MOSTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTROYING THE PLANET.
Will you organize to stop our own govt? will you organize to house and feed your neighbors?
Or continue for another fucking twenty years talking about food and who is pure and who is rightous.
...and by the way....most of the most fanatic 'food and lifestyle' people are gone in two to five years, believe me.
as the 'peace punks' from the late 80's. Or in ten years. Meanwhile they control discussion and never organize the workers...cuz the workers, like me....are just wasteful stupid breeding unpure retards.
Class war......and organize for it. stop being little fucking whiney babies...and attacking easy targets.
She should not have called the cops,....but if I was there.....she would not have needed to...cuz I would've kicked the pie throwing muther fuckers asses. All three of them. I could. I am easy to find you little men. Try me.
Just cuz of her views on agriculture and food. INDEED. you pathetic little fuckers.
I don't even like the book, and I am a vegetarian...but I liked that it was published. IF only to show how pathetic american anarchists are.
organize for real rebellion. Among the people. destroy cliques and rightous lifestyle bullshit.

by no fun
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 6:52 PM
Fundamentalism is blinders.

Anarchism is an antidote...

Lierre's real topic that is digging at you (her physical attackers) is challenging black and white thinking. She's having trouble. We all need to pull together to ourselves out of the quicksand that leads to fundamentalist violence, ignorance, corruption, and despotism.

Is it at all ironic that someone posted a pie sale for the Uhuru Freedom Pie Sale just after this incident?
Just curious! They do look delicious.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/13/18640836.php

It's not that we shouldn't do better. We all need to do better. It's not that guidelines don't help. We humyns are pretty pathetic about being consistent and meeting goals. But enforcing ONLY ONE WAY and ONLY ONE VIEW is fundamentally wrong...as in NO FUN fundamental-ist. Dig?

Yes it matters how we get around, how we look, what materials we use, etc. etc. and of course what we eat, on so many levels. It's hard to change cultural traditions from times that don't exist anymore. It's hard to create new traditions when society is so divided and disempowered.

But please dig deep, pie eating brethren. Look at the big picture.

p.s. It's Pi day, 3/14. I'm gonna go eat one.

p.p.s. There are better sources for why butter is beneficial.
by check this
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 6:59 PM
http://www.postpunkkitchen.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=2183414#p2183414

She originally said she wasn't going to take questions, and I was disappointed by this, but honestly, I can't blame her. She had been through a lot already (it was not an edible pie that was thrown at her), and when you go through something traumatic like that, it's perfectly reasonable to want to take it easy for a bit.

After she finished her talk, though, she did say she'd take a few questions, but no hostile questions. vegimator started on a question which included to list a number of places in which she said things that were factually inaccurate or misrepresentative of the sources she cited. The first of these inaccuracies was the outrageous claim, from page 215 of the book, that a cup of soy milk contains 60 grams of soy protein. Lierre seemed confused and tried to deny that the book said this. vegimator persisted, and she said she was bored and had him skip through the rest of the list of inaccuracies and cut to the question. His question was (roughly), if so many of the claims for which I have some point of reference are false, it's hard for me to trust the claims you make on the things I don't know anything about, so can you say anything in to inspire confidence that this isn't representative of the quality of your research. Her answer was that she had 199 footnotes in the chapter on nutrition and we could look at the studies.

This might be a reasonable answer if there weren't instances in which she had made false claims and badly misrepresented her sources. Here's my favorite example of this happening (page 203):

Lierre Keith wrote:

We’ve been doing what we’ve been endlessly badgered to do since the 1960s. We’ve eaten, according to the USDA, less fat, less meat, fewer eggs. Our dietary fat has fallen 10 percent, hypertension has dropped 40 percent and the number of us with chronically high cholesterol has declined 28 percent.

Her citation for the claim of decreased meat and fat intake is from Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories: "According to the USDA, we have been eating less red meat, fewer eggs, and more poultry and fish; our average fat intake has dropped from 45 percent of total calories to less than 35 percent..." (xvii). The USDA data show that the increase in poultry and fish intake has more than made up for the decrease in red meat; total meat consumption has increased (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumptio … #startForm).

As for fat, the USDA data show that our capita dietary fat intake increased from 135 g to 178 g between 1960 and 2006 (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USFoodSupply.htm). As Taubes wrote, the percentage of calories coming from fat did decrease, but this was because we increased our daily calorie consumption from 3100 to 3900. It's incorrect for her to say that we're doing what we've been "endlessly badgered" to do. Nobody in the nutritional mainstream badgered us to increase our fat intake but increase our sugar intake even more. (And confusing percent decrease with percentage point decrease doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence, either.)
by beforewisdom
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:19 PM
I've been a vegetarian for 30 years and a vegan for the last 15 years.

I was furious when I read about the pie being laced with cayenne pepper. Have these people ever gotten cayenne pepper in their eyes? It hurts! Badly! And for a long time.

That act was deliberately cruel and violent.

It was also stupid.

I've already seen a number of web sites about this incident painting all vegans to look like these arrested adolescents. Some of the sites were by reasonable people too, not just followers of Keith's little book of lies.

As a vegan I'm both mad at and ashamed of the people who did this.

They are bullies.



by curious
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:24 PM
Cops and other people who have water thrown on them commonly claim there was acid or some other such nonsense in the water to make the "attack" sound more evil.

Not saying she's lying per se, but if someone credible vouched that would make it more believable.
by Moss
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:24 PM
She was pied, get over it. Big deal, even IF it was a spicy pie. Somebody call the waaaambulance for this loser. This action was both hilarious & totally appropriate. Anarchist resources should not be for posers just promoting the status quo. Her very presence there was very inappropriate. Who next, Valdas Analuskas or David Irving? They've been trying to be heard in activist spaces/resources & getting shut down by anarchists. I've heard they're just misunderstood too...
by Kim Rivers
( litlcreaux [at] yahoo.com ) Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:31 PM
Reading what happened to Lierre makes my stomach turn. I am vegan. I do know Lierre and may not agree with everything she says, but as others have said, this was not an act of dissent or revolution, but of cowardice and hatred. How brave of three masked young males to attack a 45 year old womon. The pie idea might have been clever if it had not been loaded-up with cayenne. The purpose of that is to simply cause injury and pain. Now the question is why no one else intervened? Seems the anarchist movement is ripe with misogyny. Damn the man, but damn more the woman? Some are harping on why she called the cops. Well did you come to her aid? What recourse was left?

If you want to really help hunt these thugs down and let them feel a bit of anarchist vigilante justice. Show that it is not Ok to attack womyn. If you disagree with someone, be creative, listen, argue, take what you like and leave the rest, don't try to injure them. Want to be a real revolutionary? Speak out against this cowardice attack. Otherwise shut the hell up!
Lierre obviously comes from a privileged perspective if the very first thing she said was "someone call the cops" as only the privileged automatically think of police as their friends and defenders. Lower classes and darker skinned people do not immediately look to police for help. They'll take the help if it's there, but they don't assume police generally exist to serve them.

She didn't curse the attackers or anything else. Her very first thought and action was to call for police. Think about it.

Lots of people in America think that way, so it's not surprising, just most of them aren't invited special guests at anarchist book fairs in San Francisco.

The Greeks who spoke at the fair said they wanted rapists out of prison. Keith wants pie throwers in prison. Think about that.
by ddd
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:50 PM
Speaking of that thread in Postpunk Kitchen forum above, they have entries where they appear to be preparing for her visit, and now are worried that they it might be interpreted wrongly. They say they were really talking about coming up with a list of challenging questions. Who really knows. It probably was someone else, but they clearly are angrier at her than they are at many local corporations.
-------------------

"So who's coming? So far, it's me, SoS, Jopa, and Brokenjar. CSB, mooo are you guys in? Anyone else?

Even if you don't want to ask a question, there are ways you could help us. We've done a pretty good amount of work on this. Email me if you're interested."
"This is not an event to be missed, people. Seriously, it's going to be great. If it persuades anybody, I'll even provide earplugs (unused) so that you don't have to listen until the questions begin.

I think vegimator is probably the best contact for this, but you can also email me. Just don't PM me since I won't be able to check those during the day.

ETA: To be clear, this is the 7PM event at Green Arcade tonight we're talking about.

"
vegimator wrote:

Edited in case Keith is on here."
" This was not an edible pie. I can't remember what substance she said was in it, but it made her eyes sting.

or so she claims... She is in the business of making vegans look evil."
by 000
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:01 PM
The reason no one intervened is because it happened so quickly, probably in about 5 seconds or less, and the little terds ran out the back of the auditorium. Since their faces were covered, they couldn't really be identified. I mean, shit, everyone was in their black fashion clothes so it was impossible to tell anyone apart.

It took a second to process what had actually happened too. I wish I had had the opportunity to be closer to the front of the auditorium and had the state of mind to act quickly, because I would have liked to take down those fuckers and de-mask them.

tommy strange said it well above...
by James Tracy
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:08 PM
So this is what it has come to? Everytime a writer writes something provocative--they have to worry about getting a hot pepper pie in their eyes? Are people going to have to submit their manuscripts to some small group of purists in order to be able to speak without fear of being assaulted? Here's a radical idea. If you don't like the viewpoints being published, write some of your own and get them out. But that would actually take some work, thought and discipline.

One of the reasons the anti-authoritarian community stays small is that there are quite a few folks who have this attitude
"If your politics aren't EXACTLY like mine, you must be a tool of the man and should be roundly denounced, isolated, and insulted at every turn." This pie incident is just a particularly noxious incarnation of that trend.
by vegimator
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:14 PM
This is the content of that edited post:

Here are some of the bullet points I have so far-

Don't you think it's convenient that in your claim that plants need to eat animals to survive, you overlook that our veggies don't torture and kill us to get their nutrients and that they have no capacity for ethics unlike humans?

"built my whole identity—on the idea that my life did not require death." - page 18. The goal of veganism is to reduce suffering and the infringement on other creatures interests. The interests of a cow take greater precedence over the interests of a million nematodes because nematodes have no central nervous system.

How does she account for the factual errors (lies?), especially at the beginning of the book where she claims there are no sources of vegan tryptophan (soy has more tryptophan than any meat except codfish), and that there's no way to get enough saturated fat as a vegan (uh... how about coconuts?)

One from Alex. "Another good lie is the extra-deceptive chart of characteristics between Humans, Dogs, and Cows that she claims proves that humans are meant to eat meat. The funny part, of course, is that dogs don't need to eat meat either. If she compared humans to cats, she'd see how different humans are to actual carnivores."

She talks about plants being as worthy of our compassion as animals because trees warn each other of impending stress by releasing chemicals, etc, but this just shows an evolutionary advantageous stimulus response and not cognition or pain perception. Ability to transmit information does not equal sentience.

A hunter gatherer world at anything near our current population would only devastate the earth much quicker than current harmful agricultural techniques. Does she propose that 10 billion people (estimated world pop by 2050) could really live on grass fed beef/hunting and gathering?

Why is it that grass-fed meat fans like her and Pollan can never stick to their own advice? Pollan has admitted he eats factory farm meat sometimes and on her own blog she demonstrates her own hypocrisy by buying (grass-fed?) candy bars - http://lierrekeith.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/halloween-09/ and grain-fed bacon from this farm which she declares "perfect" http://lierrekeith.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/the-trip-home/ (From their web site "As much as they love tearing up the grass with their snouts, pigs won't get fat on pasture alone. We supplement our hogs' feed with organic whey left over from nearby Cowgirl Creamery's cheesemaking operations, along with a custom blend of organic grains."). (Alex discovered those blog posts btw.)

Relatedly, wouldn't it be more ethical of her to be living in the forest hunting and gathering rather than self-publishing books printed on trees (most likely from a south american rain forest)?

I'll have to double check but I think she blames vegan soy consumption for damage to the amazon forest. We could roll that into the above point and also point out that the overwhelming majority of Brazilian soy is grown to feed livestock and that there's no reason soy (a natural nitrogen fixer which doesn't even require manure and is already grown in the United States) couldn't be grown sustainably.
by eck
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:14 PM

Here is Lierre bringing the pigs to the anarchist bookfair. After getting pied Lierre said "I don't give a fuck about anarchists". Just because you are against agriculture doesn't mean you have a free ride. Lierre Keith; GET OUT!!!
by Tom Naughton
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:15 PM
No one tried to ram Lierre Keith down your throat, you insane fucking self-righteous asshole. It was a speech. Attendance was voluntary. But hey, thanks for proving that "vegan rage" thing she wrote about.
by Hugh
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:23 PM
I followed the link to the "thorough debunking" of Lierre's book. What I found was a rather shoddy response to the introduction of her book. Most of her arguments are not contained in the introduction. One actually has to read the whole book to be able to put together a "thorough debunking".

If the totality of her arguments are so easily debunked and falsified, why hasn't the veg*n community done so? Is a thorough, well-researched critique beyond your intellectual capabilities that you have to resort to "symbolic" acts of violence? Do you not see that this type of "symbolic" anti-intellectual behavior will be construed by most people as a sign of your inability to counter her arguments?
by Rachel
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:25 PM
You've been added to the Lesbian Mafia's hit list.

No one fucks with my friends and gets away with it.
by yeah you
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:37 PM
lots of puffed up BS talk. "I was stunned and that's why I didn't do what I claim I wish I woulda now." blah, blah

you can take a pile of shit in one hand and a pile of shoulda in another, and then tell me which weighs more

besides, your vegan and anarchist hating hero doesn't need your belated machismo. she knows who her true friends are: book sales, jet planes, and the cops

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php#18641017

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php#18641026
by Rachel
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:39 PM
Dude, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Women don't have "machismo" by definition.
by Scott Miller
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:55 PM
This sort of uncalled action totally undermines any credibility that vegans can muster. I've talked about this senseless act to at least 10 other people today, and all were appalled.

Well played! (Assuming you are trying to lose the battle to be taken seriously.)
by yeah you
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:05 PM
simple-minded much?

it was used figuratively, and yes, that use can be found in the dictionary

2. a strong or exaggerated sense of power or the right to dominate: The military campaign was an exercise in national machismo.

your blathering was an exercise in meaningless machismo as you will never find whoever pied your fraud of a hero

while your perception of your own power to exact vengeance was also exaggerated, it probably made you feel better to spout off so

duhhh
by Job Gnarly
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:44 PM
I guess this is easier and more fun than engaging in actual discussion or refutation of her ideas.
Its pretty cowardly in my humble (but usually correct) opinion.

He who pies and runs away will live to be deconstructed another day.

Why didnt anyone kick their asses or apprehend them at least? Where is the accountability?

by Michael
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:54 PM
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Are veg'ns so insecure about their beliefs that an ex-vegan who found a better answer to the same problem is perceived as a threat? And how do they handle the cognitive dissonance? Well, since they obviously do not possess the cognitive prowess to handle the ambiguity and uncertainty of having their beliefs contested, they resort to a violent hit and run - seeking and destroying what does not fit within their close-minded world-view.

And you commenters saying Kieth shouldn't have called the police: you are a bunch of hypocrite pussies. If society has no vigilance or spine then we have to pay people to enforce social justice for us. Was the whole audience filled with emaciated veg*ns? There had to be at least one virile grass-fed individual who could punish 3 vegan snoblings. You call yourself anarchists? Sounds like a bunch of spineless hypocrites.
by Nicholas D
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:01 PM
This was comical, it was almost Bugs Bunnyish. It's just a pie, don't blow it out of proportion. It isn't as if these three men locked her up in a cage and harvested her for meat, or had her systemitically raped to collect her newborn children and kill them instantly afterwards. It's not as though they locked her up in a dark lab and did experiments on her. Now that would be cruel.
by Mike Desert
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:10 PM
Mayor Willie Brown got pied, Anita Bryant got pied, Ralph Klein got pied. The only difference is that Lierre is a nobody.

She CALLED THE COPS at an anarchist book fair and said "I don't give a fuck about anarchists". I think anyone who says that pieing her is disrespectful is missing the point of who the target is.

Tho I may be a veg*n, I'm not opposed to differences of opinion, but her sources are very questionable (weston a price foundation?? That's like taking psychiatric advice from L Ron Hubbard)
by if this is anarchism, count me out
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:29 PM
...an outcry.

by Beetx
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:30 PM
It definitely would have been more effective to protest the non-democratic nature of the book fair. Why weren't non-speciesists given the opportunity to debate or give a follow up presentation? Why was this woman invited to speak? Was it really intended to spark debate and discourse or was it to sell books?
by exveg
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:33 AM
Unlike the three little shits who pied LK, I've actually read LK's book. It's very telling that the opening paragraph of this hate-filled screed dismisses LK work by simply saying that "a thorough debunking"... "need not be reiterated here". The fact that a 'thorough debunking' of her work might not be possible is no doubt the real reason for this off-handed dismissal as well as the attack on her person. After all, if there were any VALID points to be made, no time would be wasted in making them. But instead of engaging in the real debate this work engenders, the three little shits and friends resorted to a tactic traditionally reserved for CEOs and Earth-rapists. But they didn't stop at that. They didn't use the type of pie-recipe that would have been used in those cases. They resorted instead to the malicious use of CAYENNE PEPPER in their pies. What greater good was served by that? I wonder.

It is easy to gloss over facts and yell louder and longer than those attempting to engage in meaningful debate and a valid exchange of ideas. It's easy for cowards to to attack a disabled person and feel good about it. THAT is the value of your worth. At some point you must realize that the juvenile antics DO NOTHING for your "cause". In this case it served to convince many people of what they've long suspected, vegans are assholes. Self-righteous and self-serving assholes who think they're more evolved than everyone else on the planet. News-flash: vegans are not more evolved than even the captains of industry we all loathe. You have the same mentality of power-over, shaming and might-makes-right. So where you are wrong and can't talk your way out of a paper bag, you resort to slander and personal attacks. BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT WIN OR CONVINCE ANYONE IN A REAL DEBATE.

Furthermore you people are duplicitous. You are SO duplicitous that you recycled a photograph of what's clearly a man in a suit getting pied from the front, in a very different locale. LK was pied from behind and from above, by people who snuck up on her from behind. Further evidence of the cowardliness of the perpetrators who did not even have the decency to afford her the basic respect they would have any right-wing politician: a pieing front and center.

The value of LK work is that it touches on many subjects that are not normally brought up in the eco/dietary discussion. (It will prove in time to be a seminal work.) The points raised are valid, thoroughly researched and well written. If you have something to say about her work there are many fora to do so. Resorting to ASSAULT simply proves you can't argue her points or more likely, haven't read the book.
by hahahahahahahaha
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:51 AM
DOMESTICARIO
by exveg
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:51 AM
If I got assaulted, raped or mugged that's what'd I do too. Get it? This was an assault on her person. All bets were off at that point. The book-fair didn't adequately protect her. She's entitled to whatever protection she can get.
by The Outlaw
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:16 AM
You american anarchists are really a disgrace. Its about class struggle not about saving a few sheep.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:17 AM
I was there the 14th when this happened.

It shouldn't be surprising that the people who did the pieing were, like most straight-edge vegans, white, and male. Yawn.

It just adds another proof to the idea that the way veganism is represented is as an extremely privileged position by people holding a truly delusional view that their diets and cares about suffering animals trumps the reality and steals attention from human suffering and planetary destruction, which includes, by the way, animals. For the less reactionary and more mature vegans/vegetarians/allies, it's unfortunately up to you (and me) to show that no matter how many habanero sauce pies are thrown and shouts of "go vegan!" are reported, there are much more important, intersecting problems which need critical attention and action than the plight of just animals. How convenient to just focus on that issue, always it seems, by vegans. Forget colonialism, or, god forbid, thinking about reaching out to actual working-class and poor folk.

But, just for shits and giggles, let's look at it again: One woman. Four men. One unarmed woman. Four armed men. Four armed white men silencing a one unarmed woman. Four white guys silencing and acting violently against one unarmed woman, from behind. Then running away. Very heroic, fellas! Maybe you could have saved the crusts and just maced the bitch, eh? Think about it. Pretty fucked up.

Perhaps they should look into jobs with the FBI. Just a suggestion.

All said, Keith is a fucking idiot for calling the pigs. If those guys, and all the white kids sweating how Keith "bashes veganism", are what this movement is made up of (which I don't think it is, thankfully) then we're more fucked than we know.

This proves what I have been saying for decades -- with the exception of a few kind, caring friends, most vegans and vegetarians I've known have been extremely privileged people who used this issue to bully and intimidate because they have no other issue they can use.

Yes, it was cayenne in the crap thrown in Lierre's face and eyes. Such courage for a group of men to attack an older disabled Lesbian in chronic pain. They didn't have to face her and take any responsibility for what they did, and they could have seriously injured her, which they knew because of how she's written about how disabled she is.

Of course men attacking a Lesbian is misogynist as well as Lesbian-hating and ableist. It's just a continuation of how men act in general. Don't agree with a female? Wipe her out, silence her. Witnesses said there was a chanting of "Go Vegans," making it clear who did this, as if it were some football game.

And I believe it is a game to these arrogant privileged assholes, until their health begins to fail. I went to Lierre's talk later and some idiot vegan man was trying to tell me which animals feel less are are less important than others, based on the old patriarchal hierarchy of which type of person is further evolved.

I've witnessed some pretty evil things in the past almost 40 years by vegans and vegetarians -- starving their carnivore animals or letting them kill and maim wild animals, trying to hurt or destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them, and then, when it suits them, switching to eating factory farmed meat.

Meanwhile, I don't know of any longtime vegan or vegetarian who is in good health. I'm afraid for my friends whose mental, emotional, and physical health is deteriorating. Those who have returned to being omnivores start improving immediately.

Lierre's work is saving lives, and she is absolutely right about the devastation agriculture is doing to the earth. Before reading her book, I already believed that the beginning of agriculture was the beginning of over-population, war, slavery, classism, genocide, gynocide, and, of course, patriarchy.

The most important thing of all for people to do is stop reproducing, but they won't, and it won't be much longer for humans.

by Bev Jo
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:00 AM
No, Lierre doesn't lie and no, she isn't making money with her book. She's in pain when she comes to do these talks and she's trying to save the earth. She starts out describing how many species have been wiped out this day by the destruction of forests, wetlands, and prairies to make even more of the earth into agricultural land which can only be kept going through petrochemicals. As she says, this is a war against the earth and other species.

I've talked with her and am impressed with how she values every creature, including those who most people (including vegans I've known) just kill on sight. She thinks about those beings and how they feel and think. I love that about her because I know those despised animals do feel and think. Only those who are afraid of nature hate those animals. Lierre knows she's part of life, nature, and the earth. Most vegans/vegetarians I've known seem so arrogant, superior, and above it all -- like the breatharians, that somehow they are above and beyond nature. This is the opposite of spirituality.

It seems like a contradiction, but most vegans/vegetarians I've met have been among the nastiest, cruellest people I've ever known, as well as among the most privileged. I don't understand that, but I've been observing it for decades. Most seem to believe in the ridiculous patriarchal hierarchy about which living beings deserve to be saved and which should be eaten. I have some dear friends who are exceptions, but most seem incredibly heartless and do act like they're in a cult. I've been part of political movements and cultures internationally that have been repeatedly damaged and destroyed by the fight over what we eat. Almost without exception, the vegans/vegetarians doing the attacking are European-descent and class-privileged.

Last night, during Lierre's later talk, several young, arrogant women were furious with her. They had a lot to say about what was wrong with her book, which confused me until they said they'd only read a few pages. How respectful to attack a book without bothering to read it. What are they afraid of? I tried talking with them, but they just kept laughing. I had the feeling that they would have been more respectful if I'd been a young prick instead of an older Lesbian. They refused to believe Lierre had been attacked by vegans because vegans wouldn't do such a thing. They had absolutely no concern about what had been done to her -- that she had been attacked by men, that she had been prevented from speaking, and that she had been injured, and could have been seriously injured because of her spinal damage. It's like it was just a joke to them. Most of the vegans who responded on this list act the same way -- cruel and heartless. No empathy. It's all about them. Moisten some cayenne and rub it into your eyes, and see how it feels.

I agree with those who posted asking why no one has really tried to answer Lierre's book. They do remind me of xtian religious fanatics who don't dare read someone criticizing or questioning god or christianity because their entire world built on lies will unravel.

by beforewisdom
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:28 AM
Sites sympathetic to Keith's book are claiming that the pie was laced with cayenne pepper. IMHO that would elevate an adolescent prank to an act of cruelty.

Some commentators felt that this may be a potential lie, saying that people in these situations often embellish the incident.

Looking at the post attach picture someone posted I do not see any redness around her eyes.

Anyone care to comment.
by beforewisdom
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:41 AM
I am completely unacquainted with the community/communities in which this incident happened.

Reading the other web sites mentioning this incident and the comments here I have been amazed at the levels of childishness on all sides.

At this point I think I am going to assume that each community involved has more intelligent, more mature members than is hinted at by the majority of the comments here.

Have a nice life people.
by Rachel
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:56 AM
I'm a fan of etymology and a foe of violence against women. One disabled lesbian sticking up for another is hardly a display of "machismo". You might want to look up Mary Daly's concept of reversal.
by Zev Averbach
( zaverbach [at] gmail.com ) Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:56 AM
I'm horrified at the actions of these "activists" too--they're obviously not doing their cause any good. But to inject identity politics into it seems arbitrary: This attack had nothing to do with gender or able-bodiedness, but rather a violently intolerant chauvinism on the part of a few vegans. Let's not get ahead of ourselves, and let's make sure not to insinuate "the Man" into every cruel act.
by XX
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:19 AM
Chauvinism has everything to do with gender.
by Steve
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 7:05 AM
I'm not sure how political any of this really is.

Looking at Keith's book, her fans, their reviews of her book, this incident and many of the comments here it seems to me that it is just about a collection of people who are addicted to drama.

by -
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 7:06 AM
Yes - as someone pointed out, that probably isn't a photo of the real event. It doesn't look like what I remember. The background doesn't match the book fair auditorium, and they hadn't thrown the thing from it front. Rather, they sort of slapped it onto her head. It had orange substance in it.

Several people called for her to keep talking, but she was pointing at her eye as though she was injured or lost a contact or something, and needed to leave the room.
by VeganDeez
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 7:25 AM
“First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.”
Ghandi
There is no redness, no signs of having forced tears to clear any pepper from her eyes. She looks fine and normal.

Just because her eyes might have stung for a few seconds, does not mean there was pepper in the pie. Just about any substance besides water can make your eyes sting for a second, and even water sometimes.

Cayenne would have left her eyes and face around them red, but the picture in the comments above reveals there was no pepper.

You vegan haters will believe any old crap she tells you.
by are you kidding
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:18 AM
Just because you don't like the truth of something doesn't mean you can just insist it's not so. There was cayenne pepper or, at a minimum, something like it in the pie. Lierre's eyes are still recovering even today from the damage (I know this to be true).

Just because you disagree with someone politically does not mean you get to deny that person's humanity.
by hello
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:20 AM
All of you dopey Keith followers who will believe anything and keep making comments about male privilege and vegans have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, there are male vegans, but most vegans are women, BY FAR. Most men are a bit too tied into the "you need meat to be big and strong" socializing to go vegan. Women are not so preoccupied with the meat=strength myth and so it's easier for them to go vegan. It I had to hypothesize a number, I'd say 3/4 or more of vegans are women.

You Keith cultists only reveal your own ignorance about who vegans actually are when you repeat such things. Apparently you believe a good number of myths about vegans. It's always easier to attack people you know little about, I suppose.
by Vegangypsie
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:22 AM
The anti-pie responses show a deep and fundamental speciesism. If she was trying to justify the killing or exploitation of any group of humans for the pleasure or even the health of other, more privileged humans, there would be no question of her even being at this event, let alone the pie being justified, cayenne or no cayenne. If I was involved in this action, I would have been on the side of no cayenne, but I am not sure that there really was any pepper in the pie, I am not sure anyone posting here knows that for sure either. A clean pie is not violence, a peppered pie is more problematic, and I would argue, a bad call - I do not believe that ends justify contradictory means (even really mild and temporary violent harm to a living body to work against sustained torture and killing) but there is a lot of debate in the anarchist community on that point. In any case, I am deeply frustrated that this book was published in a radical setting or given any attention by radicals, there is plenty of room for this woman's work in the mainstream - she doesn't need the help of publishers or bookstores that ostensibly purport to give voice to the otherwise voiceless. I also feel that the pieing added to healthy debate overall rather than detracting from it.

Also, calling the police? Who's cowardly?
by calling out BS
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:29 AM
The picture in comments above shows none of the facial redness you'd expect after being pied with pepper. Do you know anyone who's been pepper sprayed? I assure you they don't look as pale as Lierre did in the picture above within an hour of being peppered.

She spoke in public later that same night and was fine, and now you, anonymous commenter, assure us all that her eyes still hurt two days later.

I'm calling out your BS right here and now.

Basically, the pepper lie is what she needs for two reasons. One, to justify her running away and calling police as if she's just gotten beaten up or worse. Calling police for a pieing is not very "anarchist". Second, it works perfectly with the entire "vegans are evil" myth she keeps trying to spread to anyone who will listen. And it seems like there is a receptive and loyal audience for that message, people who will believe any old crap she tosses their way.
by human
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:33 AM
Wow! The gibberish, ignorance, and vitriol evident on this thread would make an unbiased observer think that vegans are generally stupid, vastly ill-informed, and violent. Well, if the shoe fits ...
by Red Rum
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:40 AM
It is a shame that these innocent pie wielding heroes won't take off their masks and come forward. If their argument is sound and Lierre Keith is a liar, as many posters are saying, it shouldn't take long to put her in her place.
by Cameron Murphey
( murpcam [at] gmail.com ) Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:41 AM
This is such a god damn tragedy. I love anarchism but I'm learning to hate anarchists--for shit like this. Pieing Lierre Keith? Jesus christ, have you heard of horizontal hostility? This is right where those in power want us--pieing our own people.

I'm honestly shocked. I have many friends that don't call themselves anarchists anymore because of this sort of shit, and I'm beginning to understand.
by anon
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:08 AM
Saying Lierre Keith was pied is intentionally disguising a violent act. She was maced with a hot pepper cocktail disguised as a pie. Who else throws hot stuff in people's eyes besides rapists and the cops and apparently now animal rights activists? This was not even done to Dick Chaney and other of the worst fascists all over the world who have been pied in the past. If the pie throwers and their friends object to Lierrre Keith calling the police then they ought to avoid mace-like tactics that law enforcement uses to shut activists up then. It was/is very naive to think Lierre would not call the police. Get real. Most anyone who is violently assaulted, and she was, will make that call including many posting here. I would. Also what is this above calling the police "pigs"? Why make a precious being like a little pig the worst name you can think to call your worst enemy. What kind of thinking animal rights activist thinks this way to even use the word pig with such a nasty slur? Everyone is struggling through these issues, how to think and how to act, and Lierre as a woman who has not eaten any meat for decades of her life, and who cares deeply for all animal--including and especially abused and factory farmed pigs, is no different.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:22 AM
@beforewisdom, There were multiple reports of her being hit with pies containing some type of hot sauce, including from the people whom I asked who immediately came to her assistance.

@Zev Averbach, Trying to ignore who the piers are (white and male) seems like a really good idea. We can forgo any analysises of white supremacy and patriarchy then too. It's hard to see how identity politics were "injected" when it already exists at all times though it must be nice to not see that. Lucky you.

@pants on fire, Whether or not they had hot sauce in them is actually irrelevant, even though they in probably did, because there was a good amount of support from all the vegans I talked to afterward supporting, in the least, the idea that the pies had sauce sauce that got into her face and potentially caused her a lot of pain. The most I got was that it was "bad timing" but nothing about not throwing the pies.

@hello, The vegans I talked to, white women, didn't even notice (thus care), as women, that they were being represented by white men and their actions. This seems pretty interesting. They had no qualms about it. Veganism may not be as patriarchal as I saw it there that day, but it certainly is white supremacist (and class privileged it seems) in terms of who are actually vegans. Probably something the reactionary vegans really need to address and work on.

@Vegangypsie, Whether the accusations of speciesism are true are up for debate. One thing I still don't here vegans and their allies talk at all about, which Lierre did in her short interrupted lecture, was planetary destruction, the harm agriculture has, the six corporations which control all the world's food, etc. I don't ever hear vegans talk about that; They should. I don't hear vegans, who in my experience have been almost exclusively white and privileged, talk about race or class privileges. I don't here them talk about imperialism, or colonialism, or fascism, or anything other than animal suffering and health issues. To me, it seems, by those actions and reactions to the pies, that it's just a cover to not work on their own issues of class and white supremacy. And I still maintain, rightly, that Kieth calling the cops was fucking insane, but those guys shouldn't have thrown the pies with hot sauce in them if they didn't want to risk that (stupid) reaction.

@calling out BS, ONOEZ.

@Cameron Murphey, Don't become dispirited! I was really pissed off about it immediately afterward too, but I'm not going to abandon my position and solidarity with these people. I can disagree with them and never want them near me in whatever activism I choose to take because I'll be hard-pressed to really trust them until they address serious issues of privilege and domination first. That doesn't mean that they may or may not be doing great work as wealthy patriarchal white kids, you know? I really hope the expand their vision, like I plan to expand my own views on animal liberation. We' all subject to change. I plan on sticking to anarchism/indigenism. Please don't move away from anarchism, even if you don't identify as one. Anarchism without adjectives. PS. Ward Churchill condemned the pieing, saying that any assault not on a cop should be seen under high suspicion. And that's correct. Needless to say, when the pigs Keith really did call showed up, those same cowardly guys did not assault them. They need to get some balls and fight the real enemies.

by Mike Desert
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:26 AM
someone above said: "I agree with those who posted asking why no one has really tried to answer Lierre's book. They do remind me of xtian religious fanatics who don't dare read someone criticizing or questioning god or christianity because their entire world built on lies will unravel."

Some more sensible vegans tried this at the Green Arcade with a big list of falsehoods in her book, but she just got angry and said "look at the footnotes". Yes, her sketchy or meat and dairy industry biased footnotes.
by pat Cuviello
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:30 AM
Has anyone considered that it wasn't Vegans who pied who but an agent provocateur trying to create division.
by XX
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:32 AM
Interesting that Ward Churchill condemned it, considering he's a known batterer.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:40 AM
@anon, I'll refrain from calling cops pigs. I apologize. I'll call them gestapo, I guess, instead.

@pat Cuviello, I considered it, but judging from the support it had and at least tossing directly into the crowds, ostensibly, vegan pamphlets to shouts of "go vegan!" I highly doubt it was.

@XX, He also added that the guys should have been knocked flat on their faces. If that would count as battery, I'd agree with it. The man's fucking awesome regardless.
by XX
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:52 AM
Those dudes should've been knocked out, but Churchill's battered ex-wives shouldn't have been.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:58 AM
Yeah, I don't know if that's true nor what the circumstances were if it was. I don't think it matters if it were true, because people do change.
by photographic evidence
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:11 AM
lierrekeithpostpienoredness.jpg
lierrekeithpostpienoredne...

Check this photo. You can clearly see the whites of her eyes.

Without the pepper drama, it's just a pieing and Lierre looks at the more foolish for running straight to the police, and to what, throw pie-ers in jail??

What a sense of entitlement she must have to believe police and prisons are her friends. People of color and the poor in America don't think like that. The Greeks who spoke at the bookfair said they didn't want to see even rapists in jail. But what does Lierre say? "Off with their heads!"
by anonymous
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:11 AM
okay so first of all, i was an "anarchist" when i was 16 too, and im pretty sure that one of their basic guidelines is to not use processed foods, mainstream media, or name brand clothing, so why would they be so violently supporting agriculture? it honestly sounds like a bunch of kids that dont really even know what they stand for, so they simply let you make your own argument so they can shoot it down and say they support something different. ive read certain exerpts from Lierre's book and i found it to be very informational and passionate. she spoke of being vegan for what 25 years? and shes trying to show vegans the "better way" that if you love animals its okay to love them and still eat them. Its the way we were designed and its the way the world has been working for thousands of years before big people with big money took an interest in the food industry. if you want to support animals rights, dont do it by demoralizing a book author. buy farm fresh grassfed meats that werent subjected to CAFO's. now THATS animal torture.
by WhatTheHell
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:23 AM
"shes trying to show vegans the "better way" that if you love animals its okay to love them and still eat them. Its the way we were designed"

As a vegan of 20 years, and having read lots of insane things. This has to be near the top. If you want to eat meat, go ahead but don't call it a "better way" to love animals. Jeeezus! Maybe Dalhmer just found a "better way" to love his young black pick-ups?

As far as how we are designed, here is one diagram:
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii99/Rixpics007/MammalDigestionChart.jpg
by synoeve
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:34 AM
Here is my take.

The solution and philosophy which Keith and Jensen advocate (ending industrialism and reversing wholly agricultural lifestyle) is ultimately more radical than the vegetarian/vegan solution, as far as achieving the goal of 'saving the planet'. For this purpose, veganism would be an immediate-term reformist approach. Also note that Keith suggests a parallel nearterm reformist consumer choice approach of selecting locally produced foods which don't use petroleum and improve the topsoil, as we ponder taking down civilization somehow.

During her talk, Lierre Keith actually wasn't saying much about veganism and diet, and the material that has caused the most anger. However, I bet that one assertion that she quickly made is actually not quite true. She said approximately 'paradoxically, the solution offered by vegetarians for saving the planet, grain agriculture, is what is actually driving the problem'. However, I think a lot of vegans are more interested in compassion for farm animals, and consider environmental impacts to be secondary. They don't share her basic understanding of civilization or the anticiv goal.

Some people were tossing around the speciesist word above in different ways.
Drawing a mental venn diagram here, I would classify Keith's perspective as considering most plant and animal species on an equivalent level, and she elevates the species above the level of individuals in value, and continuation of species existence by planning for adequate habitat availability to be the most important step. She does consider the within-human species dynamic to be elevated or special in that she wouldn't accept cannibalism or violence to humans to be tolerable.
Cultures around the world, and veg**ians all have their own differently drawn chart of species hierarchy and individual animal value. I.e. american McDonald's eaters tend to value their pet dogs and cats as part of the family and object to eagle hunting. The french eat snails and frogs but might be disgusted at american hot dogs. Arabs and jews don't think it's okay to eat pigs. The chinese eat a longer list of animals. Most tribes have particular lists of hunted and not-okay to hunt animals.
Veg*ans set their bar much lower as far as individual animal rights (let's totally ignore the agriculture vs. habitat destruction factor here), but I would say that even people who exclude honey, whey, gelatin etc. from their diet *still* must engage in a ranked species hierarchy of value as a function of being alive. Grain based agriculture and movement in cars, use of tools and other goods involves impacts on insects, rodents, and other animals.
Does this mean that animal rights is just a principle that can be 'debunked' by demonstration the practical necessity of holding unequal value of animal individuals? Not necessarily. Human emotion or compassion, or the demonstration of valued qualities such as interspecies communication, bonds with humans, species rarity, are all perfectly legitimate reasons for valuing parrots, gorillas, dogs over meat animals. And I think it is totally fair game for vegans or any of the above human cultures to try to convince others to change their chart based on various appeals, and then to legally reinforce it with laws against people who violate society's rules.
Many species have thousands of eggs or offspring, or are 'r selected' in evolutionary ecology lingo to make excess offspring to be consumed or die from unpredictable weather. Someone could reasonably say older individual rockfish or crabs (which have a very high mortality rate in the first, months, but low rates for the few that reach adult stage) are more valuable than younger.

Anyway - all of this is perpendicular to what Lierre Keith is talking about. She is elevating species persistence above the individual, and is criticizing the whole system which destroys habitat. I think those vegans could start with a map of Iowa and Illinois, talk about the fraction of the soy and corn which is grown just for pig and cow feed (not just as a byproduct of human consumed grain), and make a point about near term habitat creation, as destruction of civilization is unlikely except as a result of resource wars and mass human slaughter (not reformist deescalation likely in the near term), meanwhile, she can talk about how many people will be sick under a cheap grain based diet, just like stunted growth of Irish people living off potatoes and chinese people in the 20th century etc.
by mc
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:44 AM
the formate of her speaking at the bookfair was not a debate, and did not allow for a debate. she gets 30 minutes of time to talk, and, if she wants, she might take a question or two, which would give those questioning maybe a minute of time to make counter arguments.
this is not a debate format.
she has been questioned at other talks.
if this was an actual debate, where an informed vegan got equal time, i dont think she would have gotten pied.

by Julia
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:52 AM
I am not a farmer but am a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation which promotes nutrient dense foods, butter being one. I have read Lierre Keith's book and she makes some very good points. I don't think she is attacking vegans and vegetarians but doesn't want them to suffer the fate she did....ruined health. It is all about choice. What you eat can make you sick or well. Do you chose to be sick or well? I believe you can be reasonably well being a vegan or vegetarian but it would be very difficult.
by Jeanmarie Todd
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:54 AM
There is no excuse for physically attacking someone just because you don't agree with her opinions. The Vegetarian Myth is a monumental work. You can deny it but you can't change the facts. This behavior only underscores the truth of Lierre's work. You're free to choose to be a vegan, no one is stopping you. Why are you so afraid of information getting out about the implications of that choice?
by CMA
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:56 AM
LK is not pro-cop. She has a criminal record. However, when 3 young able-bodied men attack a middle-aged disabled woman and no one present does anything to stop it (or they're unable to), what choices does that leave?
by JohnF
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:57 AM
Looking over these and other comments, what stands out to me is how oblivious so many are to the message Lierre Keith sets out in her book. A vegan or vegetarian diet does not cause less death than a (non-factory farmed) meat-eating diet. In fact, it causes more. The bottom line is that life goes hand in hand with death. Veg*ns delude themselves to think they somehow magically avoid killing. They don't.

Moreover, plants are living beings too. It is pure speciesism to pretend otherwise. And it is even a greater speciesism to support the continued use of agriculture which is temporarily propping up our own species at the expense of all others, causing the sixth extinction, and which will ultimately cause a population crash for humans.

It is agriculture which made civilization possible, and it is the latter, along with the very destruction of the land by agriculture, which is destroying the biosphere. This little blip in human history, the cameo appearance of "civilization," is unsustainable and will inevitably be seen as no more than a past, fleeting moment of stupidity.

All humans outside civilization have lived as hunter-gatherers. To deny their cultures is to deny what it means to be human.

To be so oblivious to these points reflects more than badly on the presumed anarchists involved in this astonishingly stupid, vicious act. They've succeeded only in making her case for her.
by marisa
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:03 PM
the assumptions you make about vegans as individual people (because that's what we are, just like everyone else in the world) are what are laughable. first of all, it is completely absurd of you to claim that three younger women were acting "arrogantly" towards you because you are an older lesbian. you have no idea whether any of us are queer as well, not to mention the fact that the power dynamic in the conversation was clearly tilted in your favor as you claimed to be an expert on, well, everything, as a result of your age and experience, and you simply refuted any points we made with anecdotal claims about how "vicious" and "sickly" every vegan you know is. i realize you're only parroting ms. keith's style in that regard. i would suggest, however, reevaluating your identity as a feminist when you disregard the opinions of women because they are young and you judge them to be heterosexual.

additionally, in the vein of your observation regarding vegans and our white privilege, i love how those who like to make such comments (yourself included) are often white as well. i know, you told us how low your income is and how everything you eat is organic. go you! but you're making another huge assumption there that we couldn't say the same about ourselves. of course, we know that the difference is that you eat dead animals because you are nonviolent. obviously we disagree there. anyway, if you really believe that privilege is an economic issue and not a color issue, i suggest you do some further exploration on the topic.

finally, the three of us did indeed find your claims about us violent vegans and our weapons to be laughable, because although we repeatedly reminded you that we had nothing to do with the pie and did not condone it, you literally equated it to using a gun. although i am personally committed to principled nonviolence and do consider throwing anything at anyone to be a violent act, i can still understand that violence is not all-or-none; some weapons are much more violent than others. you and ms. keith claim that vegans make arbitrary distinctions that lead to complicated rules, yet at the same time our philosophy is simplistic and naive. i would have to say that your claim that any act of violence carries the same weight, and that the life of any worm is as worthy of protection as that of your human sister, is the simplistic view. we vegans live the best way we can in the *real world.*
by Ella
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:07 PM
She said she was Lesbian, not queer. HUGE difference.
by DRPagano
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:10 PM
Let's see, three men, surprise attack from rear, go for her eyes with burning substance, hit her face with a metal pan.

*hey guys, let's go together and jump this woman and teach her that she better not do anything we don't want her to do*

It seems no group is with out it's woman-loathing and woman-harming men.

As a woman, I long to hear the voices of men calling out the cowards for what they are, not letting attackers feel pride in their actions.


by ButterISBetter
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:25 PM
A sigh of b12 deficiency is aggression.

Eating meat does not make you aggressive and violent, not eating meat does.

There is much wrong in modern husbandry, factory farms are evil. But that is NOT the only way to raise animals. Animals raised on pasture eating their natural diet lead happy healthy lives and make better food for us who consume them.

People who believe in the just treatment of animals don't have to be totally at odds with those who completely abstain from eating them. Many of us CARE and we show that care by where and from whom we buy our meat, eggs and milk.

And remember, us omnivores don't assault vegans/vegetarians when they speak their minds, even if we disagree.

You should not be gleeful about this, you should be ashamed. The only people being obnoxious are militant, self righteous vegetarians cramming their beliefs down our throats when we only speak the truth of our experiences; the health we observe in ourselves and our families when we eat more like our ancestors.

It is juvenile and ignorant to think humans can obtain optimal health consuming no animal products when we have been for literally thousands of years. Life is perpetually linked with death and if you think you can break free of death by farming the soil into dust then your vegan diet is making you shortsighted.

Speaking the truth is not obnoxious, assaulting another human being and delighting in it is. GROW UP.
by Dr. Obvious
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:26 PM
to some of the above comments:

a. Trees do not have a central nervous system. Eating a tree is a little different than eating a pig. Even veg*ns have to eat SOMETHING.

b. How are happy animals (or even factory farmed animals) more sustainable than a vegan diet when you consider the enormous amounts of water, soy, land and grain it takes to raise them. Not to mention the waste problem...

c. You are worried about vegan's health when your diet includes enormous amounts of butter, and your founder is on Quackwatch.org?
by WhatAreYouSaying?
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:30 PM
so basically any vegan who is violent, it's because of their diet.

any meat eater who is violent (99.8% -guessing- of all convicted murderers) it's NOT because of their diet?
by I don't care what you eat
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:32 PM
http://veganideal.org/content/questioning-lierre-keiths-transphobia

I want Keith to respond to these allegations that she's anti-trans, and that she has overseen the publication of an article justifying violence against transwomen for using a women's restroom. If this is true, I have no sympathy for her.

And I'm pissed that the organizers of the Anarchist Bookfair would invite a cop-caller and someone who said "I don't give a fuck about anarchists" to speak. She can speak her heart out to liberal audiences for all I care, but don't fucking invite her to an explicitly anarchist event if she is hostile to anarchists and anarchist ideals.

To people who say that her calling the cops was totally justifiable: It was pointless. Absolutely pointless. The cop pretended to be concerned for ten minutes but he and she and all of us know there is absolutely nothing the cops can or will do to find the pie-ers.

Also, it's fucked up that people are assuming that the pie-ers were all male. I was there, I saw it, and I could not tell you due to their masks and clothing whether or not they were male- or female-bodied. Don't even assume they were anarchists, let alone assume things about their background and class privilege or lack thereof.

I haven't read her book and don't plan to because I don't feel like it's going to add to my knowledge about the food I eat. I'm already pretty well-informed, and I make my own choices according to my own priorities (honestly, like most people I know, vegan, vegetarian or omnivore). If her book convinces people that industrial agriculture is destructive, then good, I agree with that. If people use it to point out that veganism is unhealthy for everyone (as people have in these comments), that's just dumb. Don't use the anecdotal evidence of one person to argue that it's unhealthy for everyone, when there's plenty of anecdotal and medical evidence that debunks that.
by ButterISBetter
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:35 PM
B. Your assertions about the wastefulness of raising animals is only relevant to modern factory farming. Animals raised on pasture are sustainable. They produce better quality meat and milk and since they do not gorge on grains, which is like eating candy to them, they do not produce copious amounts of methane or manure. And since they do not eat grain, that grain can be used for human food. Old fashioned husbandry was sustainable, it is only the modern factory farming, which is both evil and wasteful, that you are correct about.

C. Learn something about butter before you go bashing it. Butter from cows grazing on pasture have vitamins A, D, E and K, omega-3 and omega-6 and many short and medium chain fatty acids which are directly converted into energy. We were healthier a hundred hears ago when we ate a dozen pounds of butter of year, instead of the paltry two or three now. Not eating butter has not reduced the incidence of heart disease, people are only dying less from heart attacks due to swift medical intervention.
by Jennifer
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:36 PM
So let me get this straight. Your idea of promoting peace towards animals is acting violently towards humans. Maybe she got something right when she talked about mental disorders.
by North American Animal Liberation Press Office
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:41 PM
Lierre Keith was appropriately treated when she was physically stopped from continuing to advocate for and incite the murder of innocent non-human beings. The time for polite discussion with the oppressors is over, or as some are now putting it, "Negotiation is Over". If Keith had been speaking to a crowd of men telling them how important it was to rape women, or if some equally misogynistic skinhead had been invited to speak about having black people strung up, I don't think a rational group of anarchists paying attention would have stood politely by and listened to their hate speech. (At least, I hope they wouldn't, but you never know with anarchists these days....).

Message to Keith and others who promote oppression, repression and murder of the innocent, and destruction of the planet, however misinformedly well-intentioned- "No more free ride!"

Jerry Vlasak
Press Officer
North American Animal Liberation Press Office
by drasb
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:50 PM
Cue Propagandhi's "With Friends Like These (Who the Fuck Needs Cointelpro)
by doubtful
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:50 PM
the result of this action is, ultimately, more media attention for keith, more booksales, and more proof for her and her supporters that vegans are just crazy assholes who religiously follow a dogmatic belief system. although i agree that keith's arguments are erroneous and her claims about vegans are offensive, the pie incident only played into her hands and strengthened her position.

maybe some people got their anarchist rocks off for a moment by pieing someone whose opinions they dislike. but they didn't help the animal rights movement or the anarchist community with their actions.

http://mymammouth.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/punishing-dissent/
by Oi
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:56 PM
Looks like the NAAL doesn't even know what a skinhead is.
by GGAllin
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 12:59 PM
B. You don't know what you are talking about

C. Sorry, but you are a saturated crack pot.
by Yum
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:05 PM
It's clear that the vegans here who refuse to actually read her book are the ones who need to the MOST.
by hardy har
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:06 PM
"Eating meat does not make you aggressive and violent, not eating meat does"

well, of course, just look at all of the wars and murders committed by those death-loving vegans

"plants are living beings too"

but they lack a central nervous system to feel the pain that creatures in the animal kingdom do. you honestly cannot believe that a calf feels the same pain as a head of broccoli when killed. any well-informed vegan knows damned well that we all take from this earth to survive. it's not about magically subsisting on air, but about decreasing our footprint and the harm and pain we bring to the world in order to survive. it is simply a fact that consuming a vegetable-based diet involves getting nutrition from a significantly smaller amount of resources in this, the real world (not in Keith's misanthropic fantasy world after a massive human die-off where there are ten people left on the planet who live off hunting and gathering)
by Pol Pot
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:10 PM
The butter advocates, vegans and vegetarians all remind me of this passage

"The first thing that must strike any outside observer is that Socialism, in its developed form is a theory confined entirely to the middle classes. The typical Socialist is not, as tremulous old ladies imagine, a ferocious-looking working man with greasy overalls and a raucous voice. He is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism; or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaller and often with vegetarian leanings, with a history of Nonconformity behind him, and, above all, with a social position which he has no intention of forfeiting. This last type is surprisingly common in Socialist parties of every shade; it has perhaps been taken over en bloc from. the old Liberal Party. In addition to this there is the horrible—the really disquieting—prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England. One day this summer I was riding through Letchworth when the bus stopped and two dreadful-looking old men got on to it. They were both about sixty, both very short, pink, and chubby, and both hatless. One of them was obscenely bald, the other had long grey hair bobbed in the Lloyd George style. They were dressed in pistachio-coloured shirts and khaki shorts into which their huge bottoms were crammed so tightly that you could study every dimple. Their appearance created a mild stir of horror on top of the bus. The man next to me, a commercial traveller I should say, glanced at me, at them, and back again at me, and murmured ‘Socialists’, as who should say, ‘Red Indians’. He was probably right—the I.L.P. were holding their summer school at Letchworth. But the point is that to him, as an ordinary man, a crank meant a Socialist and a Socialist meant a crank. Any Socialist, he probably felt, could be counted on to have something eccentric about him. And some such notion seems to exist even among Socialists themselves. For instance, I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say ‘whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian’. They take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person but of touch with common humanity."
by ex-vegan who *has* read it
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:15 PM
if you had, you'd realize all the flaws in your argument.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:18 PM
Pretty good Stalinist tactic to support, then, Mr Vlasak.

Forgive us! We should have noticed her gutting a live baby lamb on the podium and eating its raw intestines while she talked about none of what you just accused her of saying.

Her being "she was physically stopped" did actually happen, and it was a wrong and stupid move because she was not "continuing to advocate for and incite the murder of innocent non-human beings" as you say. That you and others deny any critique of veganism is dogmatic fundamentalism in its pure form.

I do not support but condemn that action regardless if I agree with every ideal you hold. It was not the place, not the time, nor the right tactic in whatever scatter-brained strategy you might have.
Speech of anti-vegan antagonist shut down by masked pie throwers in San Francisco


While Voice of the Voiceless focuses on exclusive content (vs. reposts), I am republishing the below article on yesterday’s pieing of non-human animal holocaust denier Lierre Keith, author of “The Vegetarian Myth”.

Predictably, the choir of opposition to this action so far is a collection of vegan regressors, “rewild” fetishists / weekend-warrior primitivists, and those who hide behind an “anything goes” neuvo-anarchist critique - all of which breed the culture of degeneracy and hedonistic caveman role-playing that give Lierre Keith her only audience.

A disrupted speech is trivial in comparison to the billions of deaths this woman promotes, but yesterday’s resistance to this death-merchant will undoubtedly give Keith some (vegan) “food for thought” while she travels the country, promoting the consumption of animals.

- Peter Young

Read the anonymous statement below:

***
by xz
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:29 PM
yeah - Peter Young and Jerry Vlasak have no sense of politics, and the degree to which they have benefitted from alliances from other groups. Young has already alienated some environmentalist allies, with his need to pipe up in that way, however, perhaps it is good for us to have all our cards on the table and not hide passive disagreements with each other.
by Barry Bliss
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:31 PM
I was a vegan for 16 years and reached pretty much the same conclusion she did.

She is indeed more radical, and definitely more honest and genuine, than 95% of all the "anarchists" that attend these things.

As for the Weston Price nose measuring post--that is an extremely twisted version of the reality.

I am glad I was a vegan, and I will be one again if I ever see a need to be.
Be vegan if you like, and let a non-vegan bad ass speak in public without throwing a tantrum.
by thinking for hirself
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:34 PM
Fundamentalists tried to think for themselves and foster compassion for people of the same species, we could get so much accomplished. Bravo on the militant jihad, brainiacs.
or did you gobble it up uncritically, in awe of her use of numbers?

if you had fact-checked and cross-referenced, you would have found problems like those in the link at the top of this post or in the comment here: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php?show_comments=1#18641007 or here: http://permavegan.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Vegetarian%20Myth

there's plenty more around the web, if you look for it. the book is full of holes, but it fits your preconception fantasies about pre-agricultural people so you keep on eating your factory farmed meat and dairy hoping for a big human catastrophe so that you can experience the wonderful world of hunting and gathering
by not so sure
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 1:49 PM
They are not necessarily environmentalist allies if they spend a good chunk of their time promoting the consumption of meat, the vast amount of which is produced in factory farms today, thereby making environmental problems significantly worse with pollution and inefficient use of resources than if people became vegan now (or at least just ate meat or dairy like once a week). As long as people think they can have meat and dairy in every meal, or even every day, factory farms will continue to exist as an economic necessity. To eat anything from factory farms is not environmentally friendly, even if you have hopes of some non-agricultural heaven in some far off future. Keith, Jensen, and their ilk still consume products or by-products from factory farms, even if they're not honest about it.
by ex-vegan
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:21 PM
"so you keep on eating your factory farmed meat and dairy"

FAIL.
by ex-vegan
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:23 PM
"They are not necessarily environmentalist allies if they spend a good chunk of their time promoting the consumption of meat, the vast amount of which is produced in factory farms today"

They don't promote consuming meat from factory farms, and buy their own meat from local sustainable farms.
by FAIL BACK ATCHA
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:38 PM
most of which comes from factory farms. most people here them speak about meat and eat it, factory farmed or not being secondary at best.

and they do consume factory farmed products. she talks about eating candy bars on her website. and where do you think that leather jacket she wears comes from?

if you don't eat anything from factory farms whatsoever ever, you must be relatively privileged. it's not cheap and it's certainly not a realistic solution for feeding masses of people in inner cities and elsewhere with less resources and access than you. That's why factory farms exist, because everyone simply couldn't afford to eat grass-fed meat and dairy exclusively at what it costs to produce. and if they could afford it and ate it three times a day like most Americans do then there would be no wild areas left in America. KFC alone "produces" and sells over 800,000,000 chickens a year (yes, 800 million). And that's just one fast food joint. Imagine 1000 times that many animals running around all over. It's a pipe dream that everyone can eat that way, unless you also tell people the truth, that they'd have to limit meat and dairy to like once or twice a week, then, maybe, it would be feasible.
by ferald
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:42 PM
Had you actually read her book, you'd know these arguments to be fallacy-driven.
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:43 PM
If you read between the lines of those supporting this action, and in particular, the quote from "repost" by Peter Young, you can clearly see a religious fundamentalism at work, bordering on fascistic purity. I wouldn't be surprised if these people would support a fascist dictatorship if it outlawed all consumption of animals, while damning the population to every other barbarity associated with totalitarianism (suppression of abortion, labor rights, integration, civil rights, privacy, etc).

The phrase by Young which refers to "the culture of degeneracy" is a perfect example that falls within Paxton's definition of fascism (see my full quote above) which discusses a "social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy, and purity of communities" and "obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity".

And Young goes on to say that Keith is literally responsible for "billions of deaths" calling her a "death merchant". It's hard to take any of this seriously, and the stupidity of the tactic only belies the fact that veganism is an intolerant religious fundamentalism akin to the various strains of Christianity and Islam. They singularly blame a former cult member (Keith's 20 year veganism) with betrayal of the cause, and as we have seen in other similar cults that that is basically cause for singularly focused anger.

Also, the analogies to right wing abortionists is also relevant here. If the vegan cult really believes she is responsible for billions of deaths, it is not much of a stretch to believe that her life is in danger. I would call on all anti-authoritarians to protect her at her speaches as a matter of principle and solidarity.

It's ironic that nowhere in the NAAL statement and Young's drivel about Keith being the source of all of their problems does an analysis of race, class, and capitalism exist. Don't you guys think that maybe the economic system and capitalism, and indeed, civilization itself, is a far greater threat to animals and the planet than Keith is? Are you that fucking braindead?

Now, as to the actual arguments of what does more harm to the planet and living systems and beings, I think Keith and others make a reasonable argument to suggest that agriculture (the way it is currently practiced) is a part of a system that does far more harm to all species and the planet than does consuming animal flesh alone.

Like I said above, I am open to the debate, but I think that agriculture has a place if done properly and sustainably.

Finally, I want to assure the cowards and the supporters of this action that it has only strengthened my resolve to read "The Vegetarian Myth" thoroughly, and to do so with a very open mind. I was in the room when these sorry excuses for human beings attacked a middle aged woman from behind as if they were some heroic actors on the world stage.

You aren't. You are fundamentalists that have lost your humanity, bordering on a fascist cult with an obsession for purity. I have always supported animal rights, and have been vegetarian for over 20 years, and I support direct action to stop animal cruelty. But I recognize we are dealing planet wide ecosystems and complex interactions between species, and that capitalism and industrialization are the main culprits of our problems. I have no problem with indigenous cultures or the concept of hunter-gather societies living sustainably on a landbase. I'll bet these cultures had far more concern for, and took far better care of, the earth and it's inhabitants than those who have lost their humanity by attacking a "traitor".
by a vegan
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:48 PM
i think the most important question here is: was the pie vegan? that will really affect the way in which i view this incident.

secondly: you're talking about this woman as if she's some sort of fucking MARTYR because veganism (and not her own actions) apparently led her to become disabled? please. the CHOICES SHE MADE, the FOOD SHE ATE/DIDN'T EAT, possibly contributed to whatever ailments it is she has. but just because she was a shitty vegan or because maybe she should not have been vegan doesn't mean that the rest of us are condemned to live a miserable life. just because you need to make yourself feel better about supporting a system that systematically rapes and kills billions of animals a year doesn't mean using her disease as an argument against veganism is legitimate. veganism as a concept did not give rise to her disability; her choices did.

thirdly: those posters who are generalizing the behavior of three people, the gender of whom NOBODY HAS PROVEN, to apply to the rest of the vegan community are guilty of a sin that is just as wicked as what they're condemning the pie-ers for.

fourthly: if you're a feminist and still consume meat or dairy, you're doing something wrong.
by Nicole
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:49 PM
Way to give Lierre Kieth some really awesome free publicity. No press is bad press, right? LOLOLOL

I bet she has a huge increase in book sales, all thanks to the child like veg*ns out there.

I for one had never heard of her or this book and now I'm off to ebay it in your honor.
by Yeah yeah yeah.
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:51 PM
Are so beyond healthy dialogue. The shit you all are spreading is ridiculous. What is WRONG with this movement?? Keith is not a SNITCH, what the fuck? Maybe if we actually supported our allies, attacks on females and the like wouldn't have to resort to calling the police. But no, instead you cry out in support of the perpetrators.

Peter Young is confused if he supports this as well. Let the divisiveness begin!

Veganism is NOT more environmentally friendly, nor is it more ethical. EVERYONE: GET OVER YOUR DIET SO WE CAN ACTUALLY BEGIN TO BE EFFECTIVE. Instead of attacking someone (Keith) who's politics just happen to be more radical (by definition) and life-supportive than yours.
by __________
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 2:53 PM
we do support our allies, and obviously some people in the community believe this person is not one of them.
"think the worst part was hearing people cheer my assailants while I was being assaulted"

gosh, all she's ever done is extend a hand of friendship to vegans. why would anyone be upset with her?
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/?p=7368#comment-23847

Mark, on March 15th, 2010 at 3:09 pm Said:

She is on record as stating she is a “radical” activist who has “broken [her] share of windows” in the past, and advocates doing “whatever is necessary” to achieve her radical environmentalist goals.

She advocates bringing down the electrical grid or destroying the financial sector in order to collapse modern society.

So it strikes me as a little hypocritical for her to pose as someone who “doesn’t want to live in a world where people cheer when someone has cayenne rubbed in their eyes.” Much worse than that would happen to millions of people if the electrical grid went down, yet Ms. Keith would cheer that.

Read her radical statements for yourself, here:

http://www.inthewake.org/keith1.html
by waaa
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:05 PM
http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2010/03/lierre-keith-assaulted-at-san-francisco-book-fair.html

kellythekitchenkop.com:


I recently sent a link to Lierre about a woman who had decided to end her vegan diet (unrelated to this email). Here is her reply to me:

"I’ll take a look when I get a moment–thanks.

I spoke in San Francisco at the anarchist book fair yesterday and was assaulted by three men. They got cayenne pepper in my eyes. They were not apprehended. And now there is horrible horrible stuff about me posted everywhere on the internet by vegans.

I’m really traumatized. It really sucks to be assaulted, and then to have people wallowing in my suffering is just too much.

Lierre"

I replied to her, and here is further info within her reply to me:

"Thank you for your support! It means the world to me. Right now, the vegans are having a feast online over my pain and humiliation. Luckily, a lot of people have publicly posted in support of me.

I wrote up what happened on my Facebook page.

I don’t know if that link works, but my Facebook page is my name, Lierre Keith.

The really vile vegan stuff is here. [linked to this indybay page - thanks for the link Lierre]

But there are a lot of people posting in support of me as well.

So, yes, feel free to spread it far and wide. Thank you so much for your support–it really does help. One of the worst moments was hearing people cheer while I was being assaulted. I don’t want to live in a world where people cheer while someone is being publicly hurt and humiliated. So it’s good to know that there are still real human beings in the world, not just sociopaths and sadists.

Warmly, Lierre"

-------------------------------------------

Kelly is nice enough not to malign ALL vegans, but says she is "horrified". Come on, horrified?!? You'd think Lierre got her hand chopped off or was kidnapped or something the way people are freaking out about this. Perspective people. Perspective.
by link
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:16 PM
Words Not Pie: The Vegan Response to Lierre Keith at the Upcoming VegetarianMyth.com

We don’t need pie to humiliate Lierre Keith. As anarcho-primitivists and Weston A. Price followers condemned all vegans as violent psychopaths after Keith’s recent encounter with a spicy pie this weekend, a handful of animal rights activists were peacefully distributing leaflets that strongly disputed some of The Vegetarian Myth’s many inaccuracies and misleading claims (available below). Her book is a dangerous collection of straw man arguments, poorly-sourced pseudo-science, and outright lies. Discrediting the book will be easy, but it will work best with many people working together. To accomplish this, we have purchased the domain http://www.VegetarianMyth.com and will soon be launching a closely-moderated wiki (or similar site) to crowd-source the vegan critique of the book.

by Snickers
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:31 PM
Horizontal hostility much? And what ferald said.
by Feminist
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:39 PM
"if you're a feminist and still consume meat or dairy, you're doing something wrong."

Funny, Alice Walker disagrees.
by Bev Jo
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:40 PM
In response to the women I spoke with at Lierre's reading -- it's difficult to talk with someone who keeps laughing at you. And it's difficult to discuss a book they're criticizing when they have read only a small part. Your first sentence in response to what I wrote is again to laugh and you continue to laugh throughout your letter? Yet you don't think that shows class-privilege and arrogance? And who are you to speak for People of Color, especially when the vegan movement is almost all European-descent? You of course assumed I'm the same ethnic background as you, not realizing that being part Native American is part of my class and cultural identity. It takes a lot of privilege to keep laughing at someone. How was an older, disabled Lesbian being attacked funny? You showed no concern at all for her. None. No identification or caring. Whether you are Lesbian or not doesn't change that I strongly felt you would have stopped laughing and taken what I said seriously if I were a man. You were walking out to support the man who was furthering the attack on Lierre. How was I "parroting" Lierre when I had said I had these politics over 30 years ago, back when Lierre was vegan? You were so busy laughing at me that I guess you didn't hear that. I identify way beyond Feminist, but I wasn't dismissing you because of your being young. One of the wisest Lesbians I know is 25, but she doesn't laugh at and ridicule someone she disagrees with.

Lierre is not lying. A friend of mine talked with her afterwards and I saw her later that night. There was cayenne in the pie so Lierre couldn't see her attackers. She was in pain for hours. She is also very strong and determined. You can't see the spinal pain she's in constantly either.

As someone who's been disabled with chronic illness for almost 30 years, I'm often told I "look fine." That's common for those with disabilities
that aren't visible, and also applies to someone with an injury that also isn't visible.

I'm not a "follower" of Lierre or anyone (as you could tell if you read the book I've co-written, "Dykes-Loving-Dykes.) I've been observing and writing for over 30 years about how vegans and vegetarians are often the most vicious people I've know in how they treat other people and any animals they don't consider important. I have vegan friends who are NOT like that, but they are extremely rare. Yes, most vegans are women, but the patriarchal and male attitudes are obvious -- three men attacked an older disabled Lesbian yesterday while their female groupies cheered them on. At what point would they have stopped supporting those men if the attack hadn't continued? Don't tell me that those men wouldn't have raped and killed Lierre if they could have gotten away with it. And some of those women still would have cheered their men on. Having many women followers doesn't stop it from being a male-run movement.

I do think some of the "vegans" are government agents and also working for Monsanto and Big Agriculture, but the fact is that they were supported by those cheering at the time and those continuing the attacks in writing on this list. I've known only a handful of vegans and vegetarians who object to bullying and attacks. I truly believe that for most it is primarily a way to feel superior when they don't have other issues to use against people.

As for Lierre being against men who claim to be women and who are invading the rare remaining female-only space, I completely agree with her! Castrated men are not women or Lesbians, and I'm sick of seeing the man who sexually harassed me as a teenager in "women only" space. If a European-descent person had the male medical profession change his features and coloring so he could demand to be included in events only for People of Color, would that be accepted? (Many men played at being Indians when they were boys, after all.) And if they got themselves into power positions as writers representing the community they oppress? If not, why are females and Lesbians so unvalued that we are bullied into having our oppressors claim to be us? (No, I don't believe they always felt like girls growing up. The man who harassed me didn't -- I knew him well. Every one I've met acts more stereotypically male than het men I know. They fetishize us and want access to us, which, after all, is a male pornographic fantasy.) Some able-bodied people fetishize disability and have parts of themselves amputated. (This isn't a joke.) Should we disabled people be forced to accept them into our community? Good for Lierre to have the courage to fight for rare female-only space. Those who want to destroy that -- why?

So much focus on Lierre calling the police, but few seem to realize that she had no idea what those men might do next or later that night when they knew where she would be. Those who think women or Lesbians who have been assaulted by men should not call the police are clearly not thinking about how it would feel to be that woman or how it might bring up past rape and assault, which most women have experienced. No empathy at all. Who are you identifying with? Should the police not have been called on the men who gang-raped the Lesbian in Richmond last year? I guess not, since someone wrote that rapists shouldn't be in jail. Let them continue to rape and terrorize? Would you object if they rape little girls or babies? Is it okay if they kill a woman too? And some think this isn't a male-dominated movement? (I have never heard it said before that rapists shouldn't be in prison, so I'm still stunned by this. I can only wish that those who protect such rapists be raped themselves.)

A lot of my poverty-class, part Native American family has been in jail and prison, and my mother was attacked by a cop (she disarmed him and beat him up), but I still will call the police in some situations. I live in Oakland where many poor People of Color are asking for more police, not less. It's not always an easy choice. But in Lierre's case, I fully support her and wish they'd gotten the pricks.

Veganism is also a class-privileged bonded movement. Almost everyone I've known who has used the issue to bully and intimidate has been class-privileged and European-descent. I've always thought that People of Color and the class-oppressed have more sense than to limit our food choices and damage our health. But that doesn't mean we don't love animals and care about the environment.

What about the woman at Lierre's reading who said how her health had almost been destroyed after being vegan (and eating as healthily as possible) for 3 years? In one week of eating organic meat, she felt better.
The "more sensible vegan" man with his long list of criticisms at Lierre's reading was not intending to really discuss the issue with her -- he came to continue the harassment. Of course Lierre did not want to deal with someone who seemed to be part of the attack on her. (His statement was handed out at the same time she was attacked.) Lierre was amazingly strong and brave to even be willing to answer any questions. I looked at his list and immediately saw that he was saying that certain kinds of animals don't feel as much as others (presumably based on experiments that I thought vegans were against?) I told him that his was exactly the same attitude that has brought about the destruction of our planet and many other evils -- some men deciding that women, other races, and then some animals and plants are expendable for war, slavery, rape, torture, genocide, etc. Who is he to tell me, in all his European-descent male arrogance, that a beetle feels less than a cow? It's not acceptable, with the hierarchy we've been taught of white men belonging on top, and I don't believe it. I know a "vegetarian" who ate fish tell me that fish don't feel as much as mammals or birds, but she had never been with fish in their environment. I have seen every emotion in fish that I have seen in mammals -- curiosity, friendliness, anger, outrage, sadness, embarrassment, etc. I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but I respect all life, including plants. (l love and give water to the spiders in my house.) Part of my respect is admitting we are all part of nature, not above it.

The discussion continues about saying plants don't feel like animals do, based on male humans' measurements and male humans' sense of being god. Plants create the environment that made it possible for animals to develop. Many indigenous cultures recognize the spirit and intelligence of trees and other plants. Patriarchal taking over the earth included cutting down the forests. Lierre describes how plants clearly think and make decisions. Of course we all have to eat, but don't comfort yourselves with false stories about plants not feeling. That arrogance is part of what's destroying the earth.
by CMA
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:41 PM
Assault a disabled woman, no.
by whatevers
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:48 PM
"Don't tell me that those men wouldn't have raped and killed Lierre if they could have gotten away with it."

you are clearly upset, but please think before you post.
how many disabled people will die when it goes down without notice??

although of course this is what Lierre wants, lots and lots of human death, millions if not billions, so she can live her romantic hunter/gatherer lifestyle without the bother of too many neighbors

but a pie in her face? oh, the horror of it all!!



by another ex-vegan
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:50 PM
Lierre actually addresses that in the interview linked above.
by Feminist
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:51 PM
Who's to say they *wouldn't* have raped or further harmed her? That's what men do under patriarchy. Vegans are not exempt.
by jibberish
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:56 PM
who's to say those two men and one woman who did the pieing wouldn't have murdered her with machetes if they could have?

blobbedy bloddedy blingy bloink

women rape too, including children

either you can condemn the act for what it was or stop making things up
by diana
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:57 PM
A woman was attacked by three men -- THREE men in disguises, wearing facemasks.
A woman was attacked from *behind* by three men in facemasks, who forced cayenne pepper into her eyes.
A DISABLED 45-year old woman, with an exceedingly fragile spine, was attacked by three assailants, who forced cayenne-pepper goo into her eyes, which burned her eyes, blurred her vision for most of two days, and jarred her entire body.
A lesbian was attacked in a public space by three male assailants.
A woman who was attacked by three men, from behind, and physically hurt, spoke with police.
And women who are vegan anarchists don't see the misogyny -- and don't see enough 'red' around her eyes, because, of course, if there *were* pain these magical people could see it! (Pain has colors!)
And vegan anarchists don't see the issue with a cowardly attack from behind.
And vegans in general don't see the issue with violence enacted against a DISABLED, middle-aged woman.
And people on the left in general don't see an issue, certainly don't call it homophobia, and misogyny, and the privilege of being temporarily-abled ....
Because middle-aged disabled lesbians who have been hurt by young, physically-capable men should just take it, accept it; the needs of those men are primary.
But they're not. Three misogynistic, homophobic, cowards need to be outed, names and addresses and phone numbers and photos shared with the entire, larger, activist community. And we need to take care of them.
And we need to take care of Lierre; in the future, scenarios acted out by similar misogynistic homophobic cowards won't be against a *lone* woman who is trying to deliver, gently, uncomfortable truths.
There is a tremendous amount of proof within this board that the huge majority of you are not my allies, and that you find it acceptable to physically harm an already-disabled woman.
Don't fuck with my sister. And don't think I'll forget. Ever. On either count.
by InsanePeopleSuck
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:57 PM
yes, because some kid throwing a pie would also automatically want to rape someone. The same way someone who eats eggs would surely want to stab a woman in her ovaries.
by LK WIN!
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:58 PM
I'm glad this idiotic stunt is only going to serve to increase book stores. I'm about to go buy several copies for all my vegan and recovering vegan friends!
by big hearted soul she is
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:59 PM
Keith: Globalization is utterly dependent on these same computer and communication networks. The giant corporations that are stripping the earth bare and dispossessing local subsistence economies the world over can't function without two things: computers and electricity. Those two things are like the central nervous system and the blood flow of corporate power. And that's where they're vulnerable. These networks could be disrupted manually or through computer hacking. But anyone who wanted to attempt this would have to approach it like a war, like a serious resistance movement. Hitting Weyerhaeuser's computers once might be fun for a day or two, but it's not going to have any long term effect. But a coordinated effort of attacks against the electric grid, the biggest financial markets, and a list of the worst environmental offenders would. It would require planning, discipline, and tremendous self-sacrifice on the part of activists. But it could be done. It would create social upheaval and possibly civil unrest. The average American city has enough food to last 13 days. Economies would have to go local again, and fast. But this is one of the places where the progressive sustainability folks should be working in tandem with the militants, helping to jump start and coordinate local food production networks while the militants bring down globalization.
by RF
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 3:59 PM
"women rape too, including children"

Take a radical dose of feminism and call me in the morning.
by LK WIN!
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:01 PM
*book sales
by feminista
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:03 PM
I've worked with kids that were raped by adult women. I've worked with more kids that were raped by adult men. but clearly I've worked with both and the kids are fucked all the same, regardless of who does the raping

besides, the original accusations against the pie throwers as rapers is ridiculous. i

speak to what happened if you detest it but stop making shit up and stop trying to force your pet issue onto this.
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:02 PM
The new site you are creating:

http://www.VegetarianMyth.com

will only further increase the sales of Keith's book. Nicely done. Given that the site will be entirely one-sided, it will drive people to actually read her book. And as far as I can tell from posts here, and others I have talked to, very few vegans have actually read it. They just don't like the provocative title.
by Reality
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:02 PM
Yes, the world is greatly overpopulated and cannot continue at this rate. Get over it.
maybe she paid three people to do it in a capitalist coup for book sales

either way, if winning to her is chopping down more trees and making bank off a bunk book, well, uh
by Reality
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:05 PM
Yes, the world is greatly overpopulated and cannot continue at this rate. Get over it.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:07 PM
I think it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss a truth that civilization in unsustainable and needs to end; and ignore that if we continue on as usual even with vegan diets this civilization will kill all life on this planet.

Which is worse: a loss of potentially and probably a lot of life for the survival of life itself? or the loss of all life itself?

Her beliefs and her not liking being assaulted are things which cannot be compared, at least not by idiots.
by RightOn
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:07 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see anything especially feminist about raping cows or ignoring trans-gender rights.

Again, 3 vegans -male or female- pied her, so vegans are immature and aggressive? So we're to judge the entire meat eating community based on those few who harm, kill, rape, beat up, or are just general douche bags?
by RF
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:10 PM
Women who rape are generally mentally ill, whereas men who rape are generally just your average dudes. That's how patriarchy goes. Get a clue and quit trying to change the subject.
by Anonymous
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:12 PM
You gotta be kidding me. She makes very little off her writing and lives in a trailer. She is POOR and DISABLED.
by insanity
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:12 PM
the world is overpopulated, so your leap of logic is to support Lierre and her band of merry genocide makers taking it upon themselves to undemocratically shut down the electrical grid thereby causing mass death

but three people taking upon themselves to pie the person calling for genocide of millions or billions is unthinkably horrible

that's insanity, plain and simple
by AverageDude
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:13 PM
Yo! I'm an average dude, what would you like me to rape?
by then
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:13 PM
how does she afford to split her time between coasts as she herself claims she does? who's buying those plane tickets?
by NTFK
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:15 PM
I don't see anything feminist about destroying the planet with agriculture or letting castrated men co-opt women's oppression.
by .
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:16 PM
one thing though, if you have less sex, you need less protein, you can eat less animal protein, but every american ,left or right , never adresses the sexually disturbed nature of the human world. unwantede children, child deaths from parental abuse. sex produces children ,people, . shamanic cultures know that sexual eneregy is sacred. too many people being produced, too much ''meat '' being produced.
by someone who knows her
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:18 PM
she visits her parents on the east coast once a year and flies as cheaply as possible.
by okay then
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:19 PM
show us the way and take yourself out, now. write a manifesto on the web before you go so that others can follow your lead

oh, or is it just too many OTHER people?


and, yes, much to your dismay, if she repeatedly advocates for millions to die because some self-righteous nuts decide that's the thing to do and shut down electricity for everyone else without notice, that's just a teensy bit relevant to her crying victim now over a pie
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:19 PM
@insanity, Good thing pies have nothing to do with genocide, and good thing both pies and genocide have nothing to do with what I said.

I don't advocate genocide, which is why I'm not in the military. Though, by simply not thinking about this holocaustal process and how to stop it and facing the unfortunate facts that people within civilization consume a shit load more that other people on the planet, and that the world's population is approaching 7,000,000,000 people, it should be fucking obvious for anyone who has the balls to realize this will not last. It takes even bigger balls to realize that something should be done about it.

No. Fucking. Duh.

The fact that you refuse to face the truth and why I still responded escapes why I even bothered. I guess I have hope.
by Rachel
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:20 PM
What Bev Jo said.
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:23 PM
@okay then, There exists site like that. The Church of Euthanasia comes to mind. She doesn't advocate the deaths of millions of people. She, like others including me, see a huge problem that must be (or not) confronted. It takes bravery, I think. Maybe you don't have any. Coward.

Not only are you a coward (and in good company) you advocate the death of all life on this planet by not addressing simple logic.

she says that shutting down the elec grid would mean cities run out of food in 13 days. then civil unrest, starvation, and millions dying within two weeks of that

that's genocide, deliberate calculated genocide she's advocating
by cuntymint
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:28 PM
@..., Strawman argument. You and other who REFUSE TO FACE THIS PROBLEM BY EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING IT EXISTS tacitly and implicitly advocate omnicide, death over life, which is much worse than any genocide ever committed or to be committed in history.
by asdf
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:28 PM
You need to work on that transphobia Bev, and while you're at it lay off the generalizations. You obviously have had pretty limited interactions with vegans if those you've met are "among the nastiest, cruellest people [you've] ever known", and especially if you have never seen a vegetarian or vegan who is in good health. I'm surrounded by them, all of whom have been vegan for 10-20 years. I'm a cardiac nurse, and the people I see suffering and dying on a daily basis, in part, as the result of their dietary and lifestyle choices, certainly aren't individuals eating plant-based diets. Quite the opposite. As has already been pointed out, vegans are individuals representing varied backgrounds and political analyses, and many are certainly critical of civilization and agriculture. Does the animal liberation movement have individuals who are problematic and issues to be addressed? Absolutely. Guess what, so does the anarchist scene and just about any other social movement. This notion that caring for animals and the environment is somehow representative of single issue politics, and that those who have abandoned veganism, or reject it altogether, have transcended and evolved politically is so simple minded and frustrating, and really doesn't come close to representing the truth of the matter, especially among the vegans and animal lib activists that I know.
by rob
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:31 PM
Bev Jo:

I don't even want to try to address the many ludicrous statements you just made, but I will point this out.

It's not about ranking one animal above another. It's about living in a way that respects life. Murdering a human is considered unethical (and illegal) because it is intentional. Conversely, accidents are amoral. Friendly fire is a fact of life in a war, but it does not make the person who fired the shot a criminal. The pilot of a plane would not go to jail if it crashed due to environment/mechanical failures and killed people on board.

Intentionally killing an insect for no purpose but amusement would not be in line with animal rights -- after all, vegans do not eat bee, lac, or cochneal products. However, we know just as well as the next person that for us to live, something has to die. For you to eat grass-fed cattle, more than just the cow died: the cow ate insects from the grass, trampled on gopher holes, and the rancher probably shot a couple coyotes. Unless you live on the ranch, that meat had to be transported to you, causing many more deaths, etc etc etc

Your response is to turn a blind eye, act as if raising animals in a traditional manner makes a difference to the lives involved. A vegan's response is pragmatic, acknowledging that we all cause insect death constantly and that accidents literally cannot be avoided. If "least harm" to all (equal) animals is your goal, crunching the numbers shows that veganism is your best bet.

"I told him that his was exactly the same attitude that has brought about the destruction of our planet and many other evils -- some men deciding that women, other races, and then some animals and plants are expendable for war, slavery, rape, torture, genocide, etc. Who is he to tell me, in all his European-descent male arrogance, that a beetle feels less than a cow? It's not acceptable, with the hierarchy we've been taught of white men belonging on top, and I don't believe it."

Using your same logic, wouldn't slaveholders have been able to say "There are so many other examples of inequality in the world, so I'm going to continue to own you whether you like it or not"? Or for a man to say that he has the right to make decisions for his wife because there are animals being slaughtered for food? To say that because insects and plants must die for humans to live makes it okay for you to kill a cow is akin to both of these situations.

You brought up the comparison, now own it.
by hello projector!
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:34 PM
who said I REFUSE to acknowledge the problem? I certainly didn't. and switching things off of Lierre (the topic here) to me won't change that.

if it'll make you stop typing in all caps and hyperventilating, I'll formally here and now acknowledge there is a problem

I'll advocate for living more simply and reproducing less, but I will never, ever, ever advocate for anything that would, even inadvertently, lead to the deaths of millions of people as Lierre has no problem casually doing. quite frankly it's misanthropic on the most disturbing level. she believes she is so right that it's okay to take an action that would effect millions of people without their consent. but for 3 people to put a pie in her face is reprehensible. that's hypocrisy on about as big a level as it can get
by exveg
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:37 PM
I was there and I was with her when she was washing up. There WAS cayenne pepper in the pie.
by anonymous poster
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:41 PM
IF there was, she sure looked fine 20 minutes later in that photo, eyes not even red. IF there was pepper, it couldn't have been much. of course, that means believing you anonymous poster over my own eyes

I've gotten pepper in my own eyes cooking and had it worse than her

I've had friends pepper sprayed that were seriously f*d up


btw, how would you feel about the action if there was no pepper in the pie?
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:41 PM
Keith's position is, I am guessing, akin to that of Derrick Jensen's.

I also presume that you have not read Jensen's work. It is good, and it is thoughtful and it in no way advocates genocide. But of course you wouldn't know that. I have read both volumes of Endgame and find the arguments compelling.

The issue at hand is sustainability and the ecocide that is occurring to the planet at large. It is evidently clear that capitalism's insatiable appetite for growth (e.g. infinite growth economy on a finite planet) is killing off hundreds of thousands of species and polluting the biosphere. Because of our use of oil, we have overpopulated the earth's carrying capacity.

Now, what do we do about it? Jensen postulates that if the culture will not undergo a voluntary transformation to a more sustainable society, then something has to be done to stop it.

And the details matter. I don't purport to know the answers, but the question becomes a conundrum. Do you save the planet and struggle to save as many species as possible, or do you sit idly by and watch capitalism go on and hope it crashes on its own accord without much loss of life. And make no mistake, we will have a crash.

I argue that you do your best to save as many lives as possible in preparation for a crash, which means ensuring the survival of the most vulnerable by working on many projects that directly help them (renewables, sustainable agriculture, self defense against Vegan Cult members, etc)

Ultimately, these are the issues at the core of Keith's arguments, and it is one that I have never heard a vegan properly address. Their vegan lifestyles depend on the industrial system for their fancy vegetables to be delivered to their cities.

I am vegetarian because I reject factory farms. I have no problem consuming the flesh of an animal if I had to, and it was done sustainably, and in balance with the ecosystem I took the animal from.


by Daniel Kirsner
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:49 PM
Is this typical of the vegan way of thought, or are these violent thugs exceptions?
by another ex-vegan
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:56 PM
The female vegans I've known have generally been pacifists, but the male ones have been known to do idiotic, juvenile, and violent shit like this. It's just another rooster battle for a lot of them.
by really?
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 4:56 PM
"Their vegan lifestyles depend on the industrial system for their fancy vegetables to be delivered to their cities."

Straw man.

Anyone, vegan or not, living in a city and having their food imported to them from agricultural areas is going to be depending on some kind of "industrial system." And actually, it would be much easier for a vegan to get a higher percentage of their calories from a backyard urban permaculture forest garden than it would for an omnivore to raise animals sustainably in their backyard (note that ALL backyard chickens need at least some grain supplementation, usually 75%). For someone living in the city, veganism is the foundation for an ethical diet.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Make it fair, let's compare compare two subsistence farmers, one growing a vegan permaculture food forest that encourages wildlife to settle inside and one carefully managing a pasture for cattle plus a small permaculture garden for nutrients not available in meat. Both are entirely possible, but the permaculture food forest produces exponentially more food. It's a simple fact of biology and logic: a forest garden is multi-layered, producing a variety of nuts, fruits, vegetables and nitrogen-fixing legumes. A pasture is one dimensional, growing a crop that reaches only inches above the soil. Then that grass is eaten by an enormous animal that requires excessive energy simply to live, walk, breathe. For people living in your dystopian fantasy and/or subsistence farming for themselves right now, vegan permaculture is the most sustainable diet.

If Lierre advocates for what she claims is a necessary genocide, she should address the facts of vegan permaculture vs. pastoral livestock sustainability. We're talking about saving human lives by producing more food.
by Misanthrope
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:01 PM
Who wants to save more human lives? There are too many people on the planet. No getting around this fact.
by well
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:05 PM
why haven't you killed yourself? (serious question)
by ain't it
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:07 PM
time to get busy and start killing some folks, starting with yourself?

perhaps you can be one of the special few that disables the electrical grid as Lierre fantasizes and be personally responsible for the deaths of millions sometime this very year

you can be proud then that the world is such a better place after you've rid it of the excess people

if you don't do that, you're just a coward that talks a lot of shit online
by Misanthrope
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:07 PM
...with a vegan diet.
by he's too special
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:09 PM
so he'll just keep on sucking up resources complaining online that too many other people are sucking up resources
by Violence Against Women ISN'T OK, EVER
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:28 PM
I consider you all MANarchists, not anarchists.

You should be all ashamed of yourselves and resign from any group that considers itself radical or progressive. This cowardly and overtly violating act of silencing a woman, a feminist, and a pro-environmental/animal rights activist, is dominating and degrading and thoroughly misogynistic.

To the person who notes that if a woman co-founds a radical feminist lesbian group this entitles MEN to abuse a WOMAN... you're now in the ranks of the rape apologists and pro-pimp procurers of incested and raped women. That's some seriously messed up thinking and advocacy, and only shows how anti-woman some pro-trans folks can be. Like, um, you. I'm ashamed to be queer when I come across shit like what you wrote.

To anyone who questions any woman's right to call the police when assaulted or violated: you're damned misogynistic in doing so.

And to the person who phrased this: PM Press & Bound Together have "crammed" Lierre "down our throats"

The pornographic language puts you in the same camp as pimps and rapists. Something was crammed into her face. Her speech crams nothing at all into anyone's face. You don't like what she has to say, leave. You don't want to read her book, don't read it or stop reading it.

Very political values are being revealed here, and most of 'em are entirely supportive of the patriarchally oppressive structures and systems that support all other social hierarchies, including humans over and against animals.

Pro-hegemonic hypocrites is what you all are: any one and all of you who think that shoving anything in a woman's face, including something with cayenne pepper in it to purposefully cause pain, are goddamned sadists and woman-haters.

I'll associate with and support Lierre, thank you very much, and put you all on the "in bed with the enemy" list.

Don't expect folks who care about justice, social change, and pro-liberation, radical perspectives on society to side with your vile status quo values.
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:34 PM
It is not a straw man argument at all to say that the industrial system is keeping us alive (vegans and meat eaters alike), and in fact its a core Jensen argument. It's because it keeps us alive and dependent on it that it is defended. The opposite is also true for societies that live directly off the land, which is why they defend the land, and ensure the survival of the animal species they consume.

Jensen also argues that cities are intrinsically violent because our needs are based on an imperial system that extracts resources from indigenous communities by force. I tend to agree.

Now about your growing food in cities, that is a nice idea for cities that have a growing season (what about those bioregions incapable of agricultural sustainability??) I agree in general with this statement: "For someone living in the city, veganism is the foundation for an ethical diet". That is why I don't eat factory farmed foods. I would flip that coin and say also, for someone living sustainably in non-industrial culture, eating animals is ethical, especially according to the ecological sciences and issues of balance.

At the end of the day, our industrial system will crash once humans consume all the fresh water, the rest of the fish in the ocean (90% of big fish are gone), the coral reefs, the plankton, the topsoil, underground water tables, and the oil.

We better learn fast how not to rely on the industrial (capitalist) system for our survival.

Finally, you say "We're talking about saving human lives by producing more food". First off, people aren't starving because of a lack of food production, but because of food politics and empire. Second, oil is the reason we can produce as much as we do and transport it. Once that is gone, there will be a massive loss of life. We better wake the fuck up and deal with this problem. A largely plant based diet is the right start for this, i agree, but that is not why I am denouncing the dumb-asses that pied this woman.
by though
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:40 PM
Let's say Lierre successfully disables the electric grid. What do people eat? How do we feed the most people? I am assuming that even though you want to end civilization, you'd want to do it with the most care for human and non-human life as possible?

Vegan permaculture food forests have proven to be the most bountiful and sustainable food production method available. They produce the most food possible for human consumption, meaning more people would be allowed to survive the Lierre-pocolypse. Would that not be desirable?
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 5:53 PM
I think it's important to point out that, by far, the majority of comments on this page are against the actions of the 3 men who pied Keith. There are clearly a few fundamentalists that are defending the white-privileged action, but lets not lose sight of the fact that most seem to have their heads properly screwed on.

I was totally disheartened with the conference after watching the pie incident go down. I walked outside and sat down to think about it. Here I was totally surrounded by a majority of white people who seem so fucking individualistic and self-centered, where an older woman gets attacked and there is no accountability. I wanted to beat the shit out of them for this incredibly selfish and narrow minded act to silence debate. As someone over 40, it is depressing to see anarchism in the same state it was 20 years ago. As U.S. based Americans, I don't think we ever really understood what community means and what it means to be in solidarity with comrades you might disagree with.

The childish actions I saw that day really was an indication that we do not have a cohesive loving movement of people willing to risk their lives for revolution. What I saw that day was the "narcissism of small differences" where without unity and focus, we will never transform this society.

I am pleased that many people on this thread reject the cowardly actions of a few white men intent on forcing their religion down our throats.
by 000
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:04 PM
>Let's say Lierre successfully disables the electric grid. What do people eat? How do we feed the most people? I am assuming that even >though you want to end civilization, you'd want to do it with the most care for human and non-human life as possible?

Let's be realistic here for a minute. She is not going to take down the grid. And those who argue that probably won't either. Given the history of successful infiltrations of the ELF and their culture of ratting each other out, I am guessing they won't get very far. Personally, I argue that a crash is likely and we should work to transition our communities for self-sustainability. (http://www.transitiontowns.org). So I would work to feed people by teaching them how to feed themselves.

>Vegan permaculture food forests have proven to be the most bountiful and sustainable food production method available. They produce >the most food possible for human consumption, meaning more people would be allowed to survive the Lierre-pocolypse. Would that not >be desirable?

I like the idea of the permaculture. I am down with it. As for calling it a 'Lierre-pocolypse", I mean really? Like I said, I haven't heard here make that argument, and yes, I do think it's ridiculous to talk about ways of killing people off. I was trying to contextualize the politics of Jensen, which I think are honest arguments with no easy answers. I am gathering that Jensen is probably a little more careful with his words then she might have been.
by ahem
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:06 PM
Lierre is not a comrade we might disagree with. Maybe she's your comrade

She didn't write a book trying to spark a conversation with vegans. She chose to write a book that calls them ALL stupid and misinformed, using the power PM Press gave her to directly attack vegetarians. That's not really a conversation starter.

Only Lierre knows best - before when she was a vegan and now that she's not.

If you did that sort of attitude and want to be her pal as she calls you names, fine. But not me.
by RecoveringMacrobiotic
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:09 PM
The vicious boys who assaulted Lierre will probably move onto another food/politics/religious fad in a few years. Lierre had already done more to fight capitalism, patriarchy, and the exploitation of animals before these cretins were born. And given their short attention spans, she'll have done more in her life than they ever will.

Lierre has been my friend since 1985. For over twenty years we were passionate, fanatical vegetarians, as was our whole social circle. (Of course they were, I wouldn't deign to socialize with a meat eater. I would call them murderers and turn my back on them.) She and I, and the women in our lives who are health care workers, watched a generation of activists - primarily women - become weak and ill due to our religious belief that vegetarianism would save animals.

We were not "Bad Vegans". We researched and practiced everything about combining foods to get proper proteins and amino acids, researching traditional diets, supplementing and using herbs and homeopathy... but still my health degenerated. I didn't care. There was no way I was going to eat meat. It was a religious belief for me.

The thing that made me finally expand my diet back to a more traditional approach was learning that avoiding eating meat was not sparing lives. The destruction of habitat required to maintain my agriculture-based diet was killing off animals, and entire species. I wish I could be a vegetarian, but it's not a healthy approach for the planet, the wild animals, or my body. And I will no longer live in the denial or accept the lie that leaving meat off my plate will stop the death of animals. Lierre introduced my family to local, free-range sources of animal proteins. We are all healthier for it. And I no longer have the mindless aggression so many of us had when we were vegans and vegetarians.

Vegans are a privileged and usually quite racist crew. People living on plains reservations, or in the harsh mountains - all the places indigenous people have been driven by genocidal Europeans - do not have the land that will support grain-based agriculture or year-round vegetable production. But free-range buffalo, Highland cattle and goats - yes. Add in locally grown seasonal vegetables, and fruits and nuts if the climate will support them. That is sustainable. That is the way Lierre eats, and the way I eat.

Lierre does not eat factory farmed meat. At least, I've never seen her do it. She is the strongest supporter I know of local farms. For those with the resources to have a freezer and the ability to get to one of the grass fed, free range farms once a year, sustainable meat is competitively priced.

Those who cannot have a freezer, who live hand to mouth in cities and are struggling to get by... everyone I know living that way, as I have, is eating whatever they can to survive. Very few of these people are vegetarian, let alone vegan. Most of them eat factory farmed food because they have no choice. I'm lucky that right now I'm in the country and don't have to resort to that. But I'm not going to be so racist and classist as to attack my friends who are in that situation. Especially when they're doing more to fight capitalism, consumerism, and US Imperialism that the cowardly little shits with nothing better to do than assault disabled lesbians because they're too scared to take on the real targets.

Most of us here in this conversation do not trust the police. But when the so-called anarchists are too lame to chase down the vicious attackers and beat them down, someone has to step up. It is a failure of the community that Lierre's only resort to protect herself was to call the police. The community should be ashamed that she wound up backed into that corner.

- Not Lierre's "fan" or "follower", but her friend, her sister, her comrade of 25 years
by pot meet kettle
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:14 PM
That's rich. Just as you and your buddy Keith have done. Self-righteous then. Self-righteous now. Whomever doesn't see it your way at the time is worthy of ridicule in a published book.

And you defend calling the police? Really? Now what exactly have the police done for Keith regarding the pieing? Nada. And if they did, do you advocate jail for pie throwers?
by Mike Desert
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:16 PM
in the youtube video, it looked like one or two of them could have been women. Why do you assume they are men?
Should women also be excluded from protest? Sarah Palin? Margaret Thatcher?

also to the guy who asked "Is this typical of the vegan way of thought, or are these violent thugs exceptions?"

"pieing" is nothing new and it's not isolated to vegans. It is usually a harmless prank/protest. I wouldn't do it, but I'm 38 now, not a 23 year old like the people who did it prolly are.
Why do people lump vegans together anyway? I think differently than my vegan friends, I'm sure you think differently than your omni friends.
by semi-feral transwoman
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:23 PM
While I abhor any anti-trans/anti-bdsm politics Lierre Keith may or may not have (I don't know her thoughts on this, and I would be interested in hearing them), this action was so beyond stupid and assaultive and the comments so... so... I don't think I can even express my anger about this in words....

a. Physically assaulting someone on our side. Way to make friends and influence people!
b. Physically assaulting someone who agrees with you on 99% of shit except diet is oh so bright!
c. Lemme get this straight.... a bunch of anonymous shitheads decide to act like cops by violently attacking someone who they disagreed with over her choice of diet and now their supporters are all cry cry cry because she called the real cops on them? Really? Ok, so lemme ask. What mode of conflict resolution was available? What was the community prepared to do to keep other folks safe from 3 men who thought it was ok to help perpetuate violence against women? (yeah, yeah, I know the answer to this one.... "uh... we would have sat there on our hands processing this for 4 hours..." )
d. And people are calling her a snitch? Doesn't snitching imply being comrades on the snitched upon.
e. Did anyone pie Ward? Or are those brave manarchist allergic to 7.62x39?

And lastly, let's assume this woman was the most vile transphobe in the world... that *still* wouldn't have justified this.... period. I could name about a billion other omnicidal maniacs who would have deserved this more.
how people are claiming that it was pepper was rubbed into her face is ludicrous

it was a classic pieing, not this giant assault with people punching her in the face like anti-vegans have been crying for the last 2 days

and the gender of the pie people is not so clear either

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/18641249.php
by Sir Hoser
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 6:38 PM
Well, at least she's heading to Alberta next, the meat capitol of Canada. I'm sure she'll be more warmly welcomed there than at an anarchist book fair -unless some lone anarchist slaps her with a beaver tail (not vegan!)

Also, they should have just busted out the windows in her car and home because even she admits to "Breaking Windows" in protest, and no one would be crying about this poor, poor woman's cream pie "ordeal".
To Those Who Threw a Pie in My Face, Let’s Swap Recipes
by Medea Benjamin

On the eve of the closing of the first ever US Social Forum in Atlanta, CODEPINK hosted a reception in the Peace and Justice Tent. We raised our glasses in a toast to the historic gathering and the wonderful activists from around the country. We belted out “Ain’t gonna study war no more” and other peace songs in three-part harmony. We laughed raucously as we enjoyed each other’s company. And we closed with a congo line that snaked out of the tent. Suddenly, while basking in the warmth of the camaraderie, I felt someone’s hand smashing into my face. It was so quick I didn’t have time to even close my eyes. With goo dripping down by face and my eyes burning, I realized I had been “pied.” I invite you to see the photos and video that my attackers posted online. You’ll see how our merrymaking was spoiled by not-so-merry pranksters guilty of a pie-by hit and run. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/01/18432047.php

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/02/18432132.php

----------

note that Medea says her eyes burned. almost any liquid in your eyes will at least temporarily because it doesn't match the PH of your eyes. even water will sting as we all know. yet Keith lies about pepper being in the pie to make herself out to be a uber-victim. Medea was also pied very directly straight in the face (see the video linked here) where as Lierre was hit only on the top and side of her head (see video link above). vegan haters everywhere have been acting like pepper was rubbed directly into her face, almost as if it was punched into her face, completely smeared. it was a typical pieing, but she has her worshippers all worked up into a frenzy now. did Medea immediately yell out, "call the police?" did she say, "I don't care about anarchists?" nope. and nope. she took it in stride and even made a funny post about it later. so much different from the humorless vegan-hating Keith.
by Lizzie Borden
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 7:22 PM
You are unpleasant people, do you know that? What the hell is the justification for a PEPPER SPRAY PIE in a woman's face? You have just destroyed any chance of convincing people that you are civilized human beings interested in a respectful exchange of views. Now you've tarred yourselves with the image that you are so threatened by disagreement that you are going to ASSAULT a woman with PEPPER SPRAY in a PIE. that is six kinds of f****d up, do you understand this?
Lierre has gotten all the vegans in an uproar over her thinly veiled antagonistic bullshit. I got there right after the pieing and was totally disappointed. Clearly it would have been much more entertaining if we had the asinine discussion where Lierre acts smug and condescending while vegans whose entire life revolves around their diet get all finger pointy like. I don't have a television to watch reality T.V. so this was the next best thing for me, and these "militants" stole it from me. Waaaah.

But really don't Lierre AND these militant vegans all take themselves way to seriously leading to this bad sitcom which we call the Anarchist Bookfair. Clearly Lierre had to antagonize somebody to get her book noticed since it's pretty much the same anti-civ stuff others have already written about.

How about if we move on and get writers and speakers who talk about real strategies to save the planet rather than pontificate about nuances of their intellectual self congratulation. Otherwise we should at least have speakers who are entertaining because I tire of these intellectuals who act like the rest of us don't have sufficient brain capacity to think about this stuff without spoon feeding it to us.

What has Lierre said that most Anarchists (vegans included) don't know already? Ooooh, locally grow, sustainable agriculture, the "green revolution" is destroying ecosystems, etc.

OK so yeah now lets move on. What do we do about it. This P.C. one-ups-manship sickens me.

Do I support Lierre or the piers. How about I don't care.
by whocares
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 8:00 PM
I sort of stumbled upon this whole issue...

First of all has anyone considered the very real possibility that it was just a highly ironic prank for some random folks to pull on what was officially declared as "Pi" day?
Maybe all of this arguing fuss is for nothing?!

After reading about the great and "terrible/terrorizing/horrible/devastating/debilitating/demoralizing/humiliating/disgusting/misogynist/indecent/immature" pie incident of 2010 (am I forgetting to include any other dramatic adjectives here?) - and after going through the whole comment list on this site - it seems that the prevailing atmosphere is simply one full of sheer rage. It doesn't seem to matter what or who's "side" you're on in the debate here but if you can rant like hell then you surely are helping the cause... right? making the world a better place... right? constructively using your time... right? making a real stand for what is right....... right?

Nevermind the woman's book - it will fade in times like most frills of pop culture.

So will this comment and this comment thread even.

But what about the prevailing attitudes being spit out herein?
Will they fade?
Does anyone need to live so angrily all of the time?
Does it really get the world anywhere if you do?

The name calling, finger pointing, labeling, judging, biting, cursing, hate filled anger-fest of comment threads like this on the World Wide web make me question whether I even belong to the human race at all really.

Have a nice life everyone. seriously. or at least try to live and let live.
by Mike Desert
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 8:02 PM
did you not read the post right above you?
by This person
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 8:05 PM
"Have a nice life everyone. seriously. or at least try to live and let live."

forget about defending your beliefs, and forget about protest. Let nazis march the streets, let Polanski rape whoever he wants.
As a vegan I subscribe to Live and Let Live, but I also speak my mind.
by whocares
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 8:08 PM
Ah, I didn't read the comment above mine only because steve must have been typing it at the same time i was typing and just hit enter right before me, so at the time I started typing my post it wasnt there yet. Fast thing the internet. Thanks for pointing it out though. :}
by whocares
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 8:21 PM
lol ...I guess it would have helped to notice the title of your comment. It wasnt directed at me. Disregard previous apology as it is now pretty irrelevant.
by Acrataria LA
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:01 PM
I was in bathroom with Lierre Keith after the incident and can attest to the fact that she indeed was pied with cayenne pepper. I went to the bathroom to help her after I saw what was done and the whip cream was full of red powder. She kept crying that she couldn't see. She tried for 10 minutes to flush it out of her eyes and requested someone get her something with milk or cream to lessen the effects. I went to the Arizmendi table for some half and half and walking through the crowd in the auditorium was disturbed to see people laughing about the incident. I returned to the bathroom with the half and half which she used to flush her eyes and she said it helped with the sting. Someone asked her to return to the auditorium but she was so angry and in pain, she said there was no way she would go back.

To be honest, I was kinda taken aback by her demeanor towards folks trying to offer their support but she was justifiably angry and in pain. People came up to her and said stuff like "I'm a vegan and I don't support this." She spoke as if she knew who was behind the incident and I think that's why the police were called. This is where I left the bathroom because as an anarchist I don't support involving the police in this kind of situation. But if she isn't anarchist, her request for police is something to be expected. Anyways, so if folks want to criticize her for that, I think that's totally justifiable or if they have problems with her arguments or position (which I wouldn't know what these are since she was cut off before I could make any kind of decision about them), that's another thing. In the context of the anarchist bookfair and her being an invited guest, it was totally wrong for those activists to use violence to make their point.

In any case, if it was just pie-ing I think the debate would be fair but the addition of the hot pepper in the eyes makes the incident a violent one and not appropriate for an anarchist bookfair that's supposed to be about discourse and discussion.
(Not that it should matter to the discussion but I am a vegetarian)
by Acrataria LA
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:21 PM
Sorry, I mistakenly wrote "whipped cream." I'm pretty sure it was shaving cream.
by James Howell
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:37 PM
An attack from behind. What glory! What bravery!

This brave attack, from behind, is just the sort of image vegans have carried and, thanks to this brave act, will continue to carry.

Congrats, vegans, those "men" are now your new ambassadors.
by Common Sense
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:43 PM
Not only do I support Lierre's decision to call the police, but I hope that the vegan anarchists who threw that cayenne pepper pie go to jail. People who use violence to prevent the exercise of free speech simply are not fit to live in a society. There is no justification for this action, no matter what the views that the speaker intended to express. Now, I would support the pie-ing of someone like GW Bush or Barack Obama, not because I disagree with their views but because they are war criminals. War criminals deserve to have bad things happen to them. Lierre just wrote a book. Even if we lived in an anarchist utopia, these vegan anarchists would have to expelled or imprisoned, because they are willing to use violence to prevent others from exercising their freedom. Certain regulations must be the foundation of any free society, because I must not be allowed to do things that prevent others from exercising their freedom. Thus, a free society is not possible unless people like these vegan anarchists are punished. That the the crowd would not apprehend and deal with these individuals speaks to the phoniness of their beliefs. I don't like the legal system any better than anyone else, but decent people need to be protected from criminals. If the anarchists won't do it, then we need the cops. I'm sure if these kids went to jail they'd just get bailed out with their trust fund money anyway. But in the name of freedom, lock their asses up!!
by take a deep breath
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:44 PM
and who is your ambassador as a non-vegan?

can I point to the worst example of meat-eaters and say that's just like you? or are meat-eaters immune from such guilt by association?
then a free society is not possible because we'll never know who did this, much less see punishment meted out by the state for it

you really think the cops have like 15 people on this? or even 1 full time?
by Adam Weissman
( adam [at] wetlands-preserve.org ) Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:22 PM
This proves what, exactly?

The people who performed this action have gone far to reinforce the image of animal rights activists/vegan as anti-intellectual nitwit dogmatists incapable of reasoned debate on complex issues. In the process, they've done a grave disservice to the rich intellectual tradition supporting the animal rights and vegan positions.

When Tom Regan, author of The Case for Animal Rights found his ideas challenged by philosophers like Jan Narveson and R.G. Frey, did he respond by throwing pies at them? No, he wrote a reasoned defense of his position, presented it in as the President's Address of the American Society for Value Inquiry, and then published it in his book Defending Animals Rights and in the reissue of his classic The Case for Animals Rights.

Animal activists and vegans would do well to put away the pie cookbooks and perhaps read books like these. They might learn a thing or two about the nature of intelligent debate and learn how to respond intelligently to a position they disagree with.

All the people who performed this action accomplished was to amuse themselves and their friends. People antagonistic to their position have more reason to now see them as fools. People on the fence may be encouraged by this foolish, sophomoric action to believe that vegans and animal advocates lack the capacity to advance an effective defense against Keith's arguments, implying weakness in their position. People supportive of the vegan and animal rights positions, like myself, have good reason to feel embarrassed by this action and to be angered that our position has been so poorly represented by our colleagues.

There is a time and place for disruptive and aggressive tactics. That time and place is not in a forum where opportunity exists for dialogue, discussion, and debate.

Opponents of Keith's position could have:

- Challenged her to a debate.
- Organized a separate session to counter her arguments.
- Asked challenging questions after her talk.

All of these approaches could have potentially caused audience members to reconsider Keith's position, an end that was not achieved by this clownish stunt. Unfortunately, intelligent debate requires careful thought. It required examining where Keith is right, where she is wrong, and understanding why she is right when she is right and why she is wrong when she is wrong. It requires being able to articulate these things. It means having a conversance with facts and ideas. It means critically thinking, something dogmatists often find difficult. I've yet to read Keith's book in all honesty, but I am very interested to read it. If we are truly confident in our ideas, we must be willing to consider views that challenge them. From the excerpts and reviews I've read of the book, my sense is that Keith advances some important points that vegans need to consider in some areas while making very weak arguments in others. Advancing intelligent arguments means being able to distinguish the two, crafting thoughtful responses to thoughtful arguments and illustrating why poorly conceived arguments should be rejected. I hope the pie throwers will consider these points and act in a fashion more likely to advance their ends in the future.
by Ulrike Meinhoff
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:38 PM
Didn't you know? Debating isn't radical, and it's all about being more radical than somebody else, anyone who disagrees is a liberal. DEBATE MEANS ATTACK!
by exveg
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 10:59 PM
You can see my 12:33 Duplicitous Cowards post if you want to know how I feel about the pie-ing. If there'd been no cayenne pepper in the pie, I would feel the same about it. The cayenne pepper ratchets up the severity of the aggression. It does not change the fundamental fact that it was an UNPROVOKED ATTACK. If they ever catch and prosecute the CRIMINAL PERPETRATORS who did this, it could count as an aggravating factor qualifying them for a nice enhancement.
by PelMel
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:02 PM
Can we just agree that Lierre and the kids with the shaving cream pie are both annoying extremes and aren't helping anybody?
by JSO
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:05 PM
These stupid vegan asses were lucky I wasn't there. I would have slapped the shit out of them for attacking this lady. Why didn't anyone else?!?!?!?!?
by (recovering) exveg
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:12 PM
Take good care of Lierre, give her all the support you can.
by Shocked
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:26 PM
Appalling behavior. Throw pies. Fine! Throw rotten tomatoes. Fine!

PEPPER IN THE EYES? She was essentially maced because her beliefs were different!

Maced because she believes differently.

Physically harmed and silenced because she has different beliefs.

It's bad no matter how you say it.

We need not worry about the government taking away our civil liberties. Nor the impact of big business pushing the government to do so. Hell, don't even need to worry about the impact of religion on our rights and liberties. We the People are creating an Orwellian state for ourselves.
I've met plenty of ex-vegetarians over the years. Some didn't eat well as veggies, trying to live on cake and things like that or basically going hungry because they didn't know what to do and got headaches etc. Some just couldn't handle the relentless peer pressure and prodding from non-veggies to conform. A variety of things led to eating animals again.

The only universal thing I've observed in these two decades plus that I've been paying attention to such things is that every ex-veg I've run into originally became vegetarian for reasons other than animal rights, such as health, diet, etc. Everyone I've met that became veg because of animal rights is still a vegetarian.

While this is an almost entirely anonymous comment thread and any replies have to be taken with a grain of salt, I am curious if anyone has a believable story that contradicts my observation.
by Vegan nutritionist
Monday Mar 15th, 2010 11:58 PM
As the resident nutritionist for a vegan advocacy organisation, I must say that I'm stunned at the ignorant aspersions being cast on the vegan diet in this thread.

As most of the world's major dietary / health orgs will tell you, a balanced vegan diet is perfectly healthy at all stages of life, for all people. Visit http://www.pubmed.org and read the thousands of papers on veganism if you don't believe me. (Interestingly, by the way, the same conclusions have not been drawn about the Weston A Price diet...there's a reason the founder is on Quackwatch, you know ;-)

On the subject of Lierre's terrible book, which I've read (as have, interestingly, a number of vegans I know), there's very little to say except that it is possibly the single most poorly researched, illogical piece of defensive drivel I've encountered on the subject of diet. Yes, she makes some good points about industrial agriculture, etc., but she clearly lacks the critical thinking skills required to formulate anything resembling a consistent argument and draws some of the most bizarre, misleading comparisons imaginable. To say that her personal bias (prejudice) is clouding her judgement is an understatement. I recommend reading The Vegetarian Myth with a copy of Logical Fallacies 101 nearby....

PS: Lierre's friend of 25 years really made me laugh when she stated that their longtime vegetarian group knew all about those complex things like protein 'and' amino acids...and *homeopathic remedies*!?

PPS: The http://www.vegetarianmyth.com site is a great idea. I'll happily contribute :-)
by Sward Smurchill
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:01 AM
But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up and refused to allow PM Press and Bound Together to yet again try to cram Lierre Keith down our throats. They stood up for many who have suffered silently, without a voice, since the publication of her book.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

You're kidding, right?

"They stood up for many who have suffered silently?"

Douche!!!!!
by Bev Jo
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:02 AM
There was no comparison. We all have to eat. I don't agree with the hierarchy that men set up with European-descent men at the top, mammals below humans, etc. that we were taught in school. I've observed enough about animals to dare to question all the lies I've been taught. Indigenous cultures that are still connected to the earth don't believe plants are inferior beings to animals either. The arguments continuing the patriarchal lie about who is superior is based on men experimenting/torturing animals to prove how much they feel or don't feel. How do those of you know that trees don't feel? Where did you get this story? Nerve endings? Which animals were tortured to prove that some feel and others don't? This is the continuing line of politics and beliefs that not so long ago debated whether human females had souls.

I believe plants, insects, spiders, etc. have souls, and that they think and feel. Animals I feel a deep connection to (rats) will kiss the hand of the person who experiments on them, yet they are killed as vermin. Their capacity for love is incredible. The only person I have known who has returned from the dead was a little rat. I'm sick of all the nature-hating propaganda and hierarchy that is destroying our earth.

I don't want anyone to die so I can eat, but since we are all animals who need to eat, we have to kill. One steer feeds many more people than any other food source I know, and, until we can return to very few people who live as hunter/gatherers, eating a free range steer is the most ethical way I can think of eating.

In regards to "transphobia," I don't need to be condescendingly lectured. I'm not "phobic" of men who insist they are women -- I'm oppressed by them. (I am also oppressed by women who want male privilege and to no longer be female.) As my friend, Katinka, in Sweden has said, after castrated men and their Lesbian allies destroyed the last women's center in Sweden: "The word phobia means 'irrational fear.' My fear of MTF transsexuals is not irrational -- it's well founded and justified. That fear is political (they destroy feminist politics and community) and physical (like other men, they are physically violent and sexuallly abusive and intimidating.) I also have a feminist critique of them and the transsexual movement (a conservative, anti-feminist movement.) Having a feminist analysis and critique of castrated men and their movement is not the same as being "phobic."

Lesbians have the right to be together away from men, but castrated men try everything they can to prevent us from that. What part of "no" do they not understand? Again, it's a rape mentality, to force females against our will to do what men want.

I was not being far-fetched to bring up rape as what Lierre's attackers may also have wanted to do. Whenever men attack women and girls, the threat of rape is there. Of course it's a joke for men and another way for men to ridicule females. For most females, we know the truth.

But I brought up the issue of rape in response to someone posting that many vegans don't believe rapists should be put in jail. Why is what I said ridiculed and no one answered that?
by ?????
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:34 AM
You're a nutritionist for a vegan advocacy organization. Why should i trust what you say about her book or nutrition for that matter any more than I would trust an environmental scientist working for exxon-mobil talking about global climate change?
by Vegan Cabal
( veganimalien [at] riseup.net ) Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:44 AM
The speciesist approach says fine, even the anti-factory farm speciesists. I reside with ex-vegans who are ideologically against industrial animal agriculture and they routinely excuse buying chicken's, pig's, cow's and fish's body parts from factory farmed sources because the noble-primitive perspective fogged up their sense for consideration of the individual suffering being. They too are suffering, complaining of bodily illness, and discontentment pervades the growth experience of their young kids who eat what their parents eat and don't understand why they are getting sick every month.

A speculative theorist says sadness isn't from awareness of a holocaust on animals and people jump on their faux remedy? They suggest to revert to the more familiar patterns of childhood and feel comforted. Beneath the surface the turmoil of emotions seethe. The symptoms are eased and the source of the trouble grows, unchecked. Psychiatry has a financial interest in keeping us unhappy perpetually.

http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp

heme iron is from hemoglobin in meat

nonheme iron is from plant sources

...either is adequate for our nutritional needs.

Lentils contain more than 2 times the iron as lean beef, look into it for yourself.

Our evolution has included meat and veggies, varied depending on location, and life is majestically adaptive. We can individually choose where evolution goes from here. Do we want to behave more like predators or herbivores. Do you like the thought of rampant violence or would you like a more peaceful society? Many nutritionists agree that vegan diets can be totally healthy, planning and eating healthfully is key.

Immortal Technique....supporting sexism and speciesism. Revolutionaries do more than write raps, they walk the talk and sew the seeds. Example:

“…the greatest change we need to make is from consumption to
production, even if on a small scale, in our own gardens. If only 10% of
us do this, there is enough for everyone.
Hence the futility of revolutionaries who have no gardens, who depend on
the very system they attack, and who produce words and bullets, not food
and shelter.” – Bill Mollison

At an anarchist bookfair anything can happen and the cops are just 20 minutes away because that is how fucking affective the anarchist movement has been at achieving it's principle aims in America. Soon all this will be irrelevant, the end is nigh. Peak everything peeks out from behind denial...denial looks like day to day business as usual. Denial is eco-tourism and conventional wisdom. The collapse has been a long while coming and the infighting we see now is a last expression of futile peaceful resistance to unrelenting industrial dominance.

Vegan or die!



by semi-feral transwoman
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:50 AM
I'm sure oh so many transwomen have oppressed you, bev jo.... in fact, I'm sure there is an entire culture set up and run by transpeople who make sure that their goal is to oppress cisgendered people like yourself. I'm sure they go out of their way to make it impossible for you to find housing, jobs, and when all that hasn't broken you down, they make it so that it is more or less legal to get away with murdering you...it must be so horrible.... oh, wait, no... I totally got that wrong.... it's actually the a culture of civilized straight white wealthy cisgendered men (and a few women) people fucking over you, me, and everyone else. damn reality from getting in the way of politics, huh?

So, yeah, seriously, if your goal is to help, here's a hint. Your now almost 40 year old regurgitation of Janice Raymond's talking points ain't helping anyone, other than maybe yourself.
by okay
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:04 AM
Why should you trust what Lierre says?

You shouldn't. Do your own research and double-check things you read online and in books.

I myself searched for quackwatch and found that indeed Weston Price is listed there: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

he's one of Keith's heros
First, i have no opinion on her book, i have not read it. I was in the room to hear what she had to say, altho i don't consider either her argument or her detractors very important, compared to the war repression, and capitalist exploitation going on in the world now. And i find the idea that violence is caused by eating or not eating meat to be ludicrous.

I feel that it was the wrong tactic to shut her down. It struck me a little like the what the anti-abortionists do, i.e. take a highly charged concept like genocide or holocaust and bend it out of shape to fit their pet peeve, and then act on that peeve like it was the end of everything that was good and just that she spoke. I think for this question, vigorous debate including heckling if the she wasn't answering the question would be appropriate.

Thirdly to her supporters, it was only a pie, yes if IF it was cayenne pepper, that was mean, but she'll get over it. And her dealing with the cops, (while not showing her class like some claimed-poor people call the cops in this society all the time), shows she was blowing it out of proportion (probably as much because her dealing with stupid lifestylist arguments (like her opponents) blows this whole discussion out of importance. (On the other hand, i don't agree with Orwell quote. I agree with the CNT that different lifestyles need a place, but i do say harping on them is not revolutionary or makes any strategy for change away form the ills of this society.)

And as well i'm having problem with those people who claim that she should be protected more because she is a woman, disabled, lesbian, or older. This chivalry strikes me as a red heriing. If she were attacked because she is a woman, lesbian, disabled, or older, that would be sexist, anti-queer, anti-disabled, or anti-elderly but this was not. Everybody agrees (except for the few who think did to herself because it would make her book sell more, or those who believe it was cops [as if the cops would care or even understand what this argument's about] that this was about the nasty things she says about vegans. I don't think people should be given blank checks to say nasty things because they are in a vulnerable class. (For the record, i'm a white male older disabled gay Jew who doesn't eat dairy, but does eat meat and eggs).

And besides what a San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair without a little drama? To boycott Bound Together because they carry her book, (and then to be glommed on by the kook who wants Bound Together boycotted because it carries magazines about removal of the age of consent laws) is ridiculous.
by Bryan
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:21 AM
It's typical of whiny, middle-class, bourgeois, college-educated babies that instead of confronting the substantive claims of those with whom they disagree, they instead result to name-calling and stupid pranks. While you're patting yourselves on the back for "speaking truth to power," consider you essentially conceded you have no argument.

And why were Ms. Keith's assailants masked? Do they not have the courage of their convictions? Pathetic.

But, seriously, congrats on having mommy and daddy foot your bacherlor's. You rebels you.
by Vegan nutritionist
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:37 AM
Your skepticism is indeed healthy; in fact it would be great if it was shared by more of the readers of Keith's book.

If you are concerned that I might be exhibiting bias (although the Exxon-Mobil comparison is possibly a touch extreme ;-), feel free to visit the websites of the World Health Organisation, The American Dietetic Association, PubMed, etc. and draw your own conclusions.

I would also recommend having a look at the China-Cornell Study, the largest study of diet ever undertaken. It reaches some surprising conclusions.
by another "ancient" radical
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:54 AM
I personally feel solidarity with Lierre in so far that getting pied, with what may well have been shaving cream and cayenne pepper in a metal plate, would be totally traumatic, especially in a place where she had good reason to believe she was invited to be among radicals, who are interested in discussing political differences. I have gotten cayenne pepper in my eyes and milk does in fact help reduce the irritation, so whether or not her eyes were noticeably red in a picture in which she's squinting, doesn't proof anything. If there was shaving cream in the mix, it is even more of a violent assault, as those products are full of toxic chemicals, which could have put someone more sensitive, like an asthmatic, in the hospital.

Shame on you masked pie-throwers! Throw your pies at Big Ag capitalists who are actively destroying the planet, not at writers who express their imperfect critique of the system in a patronizing and judgmental way. Better yet, rather than pulling a meaningless symbolic prank, take some effective direct action to make actual change...

As for calling the cops to show up at an event of the radical left, Lierre gets no solidarity from me whatsoever. Is there really anyone here who has any illusion that the cops were remotely interested in protecting Lierre? Is there really any doubt that the cops were absolutely thrilled to have an excuse to scrutinize an anarchist gathering? I understand how in a traumatic moment someone might have a knee-jerk reaction of some sort (though calling the cops in such a knee-jerk reaction certainly reveals a deep sense of illusion in the very system that this gathering challenges every year), but there's really no excuse for bringing the cops down on the Anarchist Bookfair.

So shame on you too, Lierre! If you really don't care about anarchists, don't mingle with them. But if calling the cops really was just a misguided knee-jerk reaction on your part, an apology to the other folks at the bookfair, who were endangered by your action, is in order.

Both the pie-ing and calling the cops was at best counterproductive. The pie-ing, just like drenching the RCP literature last year, is enough for cops to use the conflict as an excuse to pay a visit, and fuck with those attendees who might be less cowardly than hiding behind masks and printed words, but who have participated in actual direct actions cops might recognize them from, and for which the cops just might hold a grudge...

Frankly, what I find most distressing is that the organizers of the bookfair didn't deal with this situation any better. Perhaps I missed the posts of any organizers addressing what happened...? I sure would like to hear their experience of what went down. Anarchism isn't about throwing a party where "anything goes", but has a long history of taking social responsibility and defending each other from violence, whether it is perpetrated by the state, by battering parents or partners, or abusive strangers. If you invited Lierre to speak, you were responsible to make sure that she was okay after she was traumatized, as well as to make sure that she would not call the cops on everyone else, but would instead be able to trust that she would be protected and that her continued presence would not result in further assaults.

And as a somewhat irrelevant side note: Comrades, how about not talking about those of us in our 40s as though we're crones...?! We're not that old, and anarchism has been around a lot longer than any of us.
by Steve
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:27 AM
I am completely unacquainted with the anarchist community or belief system, so take this comment for what it is worth.

Lierre Keith was attacked, so why wouldn't she call the police?


BTW, I'm a long term vegan who thinks her book and her credentials to write it are a joke.
by Deb
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:36 AM
Whoever the three main men were that did this to another human being........very mature. Grow up. Take some anger management classes.
by beforewisdom
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:37 AM
Lierre Keith should send a fruit basket with a 'thank you" note to the 3 people who pied her.

People who never would have heard of or cared about her book might just buy it to see what all of the fuss is about.

She can also point out to reasonable, but uninformed people 3 examples of what she means by vegans being juvenile.

Hitting her was a stupid and self indulgent act. It has hurt the cause of helping animals.

by Steve
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:48 AM
@Deb

I agree with you that the 3 pie throwers are immature. It seems like the other anarchists, vegans, paleotards meat eaters commenting on this thread are fairly immature too. Most of them, not all.

It is fairly obvious they never got over some sort of conflict with their parents.

They come off as angry children in adult bodies cocooned in an isolated subculture.

No wonder any of these groups aren't accomplishing all that much to change the world.

by beforewisdom
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:51 AM
I would like to thank the owners of this blog for allowing everyone to post their opinion.

I'm not saying it is wrong, but you just don't get that freedom every where on the web these days.

Thanks much people.
by Karen Ferguson
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 5:41 AM
Just wondering if you think this assault is going to do your movement any good??
Narcissism is a real turn off for most people. So is entitlement.
The three thugs that hid behind pepper spray are not heroes. They're idots who broke the law.
Assault is illegal, brutal and wrong.

I hope there are a few of you who are still thinking straight.
You've confirmed what I've thought for a long time: you're the dark side of the definition of a cult and act like it too.
I have no respect for what you've done. Your sense of entitltment is white male induced and bruality personified.

Get a good therapist if you think this worked.
My friends and I ....all 321 on my email list are going out and buying her book in support.

Your actions are actions of thugs.

Most Sincerely,
Karen Ferguson
by B.R.
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:01 AM
You are one nasty bunch. I hear that being vegan can make you depressed since you are not getting nearly enough protein and other nutrients in your diet, but why do you have to resort to something as childish and rude as this assault?
by deanosor
( deanosor [at] mailup.net ) Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:45 AM
"Being vegan makes you depressed because of a lack of [meat] protein in your diet" and "meat makes you angry" because of the protein/hormones/chemicals in it, are two side of the same coin. No, for the most part, there are real reasons in the real world that people get angry. The pie-throwers got angry because they felt Keith was dissing them which is true. (note: i'm not saying that throwing the pie or disrupting her speech was a good response to their being dissed). She called the cops because of the "attack". Comrades, there are reasons people in this fucked up society are getting angry. Real repression, real exploitation, real environmental destruction. Keith is not the cause of any of that, and neither are a bunch of disruptive vegans. Let's unite to fight the real problems, and ARGUE out the other issues.

Note to the Bookfair committee: I knew this was coming. This was a provocative action (not in the sense of police provocateur, but in the sense of tending to excite) and you know it. When you invite people with kind of politics, expect a reaction. And as for calling the cops, this is what happens when you invite non anarchists to speak at the Bookfair. As has been noted before, too many of the speakers at our Bookfair don't even identify themselves as anarchist. You did a better job this year than in the past of getting away form the provocative but non-anarchist speakers. The Greeks were great. We need less speakers who support politicians or cops and more "self-identified" anarchists.
by Kim
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:10 AM
...this vile act of violence is sick in the head, pure and simple.
by Mike Desert
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:56 AM
Calling transgener people "castrated men" is vile and mean. It is because of statements like this that people question Lierre's transphobia, and probably another reason she wasn't warmly welcomed to a SAN FRANCISCO ANARCHIST BOOK FAIR.
by exveg
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:01 AM
I think Lierre Keith did.
by Mike
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:25 AM
Me: Someone just wrote: "Your sense of entitltment [sic] is white male induced and bruality [sic] personified."

My (feminist) Wife: Seriously, you have to stop reading that. These people are CRAZY and will drive you insane. They are so far removed from any sort or reality, compassion or dignity that there's no point in trying to talk to them.

she's right, this sensible vegan knows when enough is enough.
by dustyshoes
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:27 AM
Since the pie throwing was done at the beginning of her condemnation of the practice of factory farming, has anyone stopped to think that Monsanto or anyone of it's affiliates was at the core of this ridiculous heist? An anarchist for the factory farmers? Irony at its best.
by Bev Jo
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:33 AM
I don't ever pretend to be speaking for Lierre. Why is she being criticized for what others have said? We have the right to have women-only space, which is now almost non-existent. Why? Most men don't want us to have it. I would never dream of insisting I was part of a group I oppress and demand access to that groups private space. The male right to all females is so obvious in that insistence

Lierre never called "MTFs" "castrated men." I did, after reading Katinka. To call them "MTFs" is acting as is they have somehow become women. Our anger is justified. One even sued the rape crisis center in Vancouver to be able to be on the phone lines. Should any raped woman have to talk to a man when she desperately needs support?

Again, for those who have willingly had healthy limbs be amputated because of a fetish, which some people have done, should they have access to the disabled community? Why is an oppressed group wanting private space so threatening? How is this issue different? At the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, these men have snuck in, rushed to the showers and taken their clothes off as a male territorial statement. Men have always tried to get into Lesbian space, whether it's the cops raiding our bars, or just coming in and attacking Lesbians.

And why is this issue even being used against Lierre?
by Bev Jo
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:56 AM
I never did read Janice Raymond since I wrote about this issue years before she did, but, from what I've been told, her book is excellent and so thank you for the comparison. Just because something was written years ago doesn't invalidate it at all. All the issues she mentioned are still valid, only it has gone beyond what we could have dreamed of in the Seventies. Really, why would anyone want to shut down the only women's center in Sweden or the rape crisis center in Vancouver or one of the only remaining women's events in the US -- unless they really are men trying to destroy what little we have
by since the "incident"
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:10 AM
In the last 48 hours since the "incident" that has fueled over two hundred people to post on indybay.....

Thousands of people died because they don't have access to food, medicine, shelter, clean water, sanitation. Not because there is not enough production of what people need to survive but because what is produced is distributed based on profit and not on need.

There is also a war going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. The war has expanded to Pakistan. Over a million people have died. Millions more have been injured and millions have been displaced. Prior to the "new" war on Iraq, a million and a half people died from the sanctions. In other words, millions dead and millions more will die because of U.S. "forgein policy."

While millions of Americans every year are losing access to healthcare, housing, education and jobs, banks, corporations and military bailouts and spending are in the trillions.

I am home with the flu and so here I am on indybay wondering, given the conditions and crisis facing poor/working people, what the fuck are you all going on about?

And by the way, as a woman, I take strong offense to the characterization of women being constantly victimized by male oppression. Really, and this is a good example, the pie in the face was a silly act and certainly not another example of male dominance or hatred towards women. And I don't need to cry, run away to my radical "victim hugging" feminists or call the cops. I can tell them to fuck off or simply wipe off my face and proceed. And stop attacking transgender folk to further your victim agenda.


Vegan/Vegatarian/Meat. When I was poor and hungry, I ate practically anything.
by Aaron
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:34 AM
I do not know if Lierre received medical attention at the fair, and do to the chemical nature of the attack I hope she did. As an EMT I can not respond to her medical needs until the "blue canaries" show up and secure the scene. That just how things work.
You can not save the environment by plowing it under. Grow and raise you own food, a bit of real work may do you good.
by 000
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:44 AM
Her amazon.com ranking is pretty good right now - 1768#, and top ranking in politics>>activism.

By the way... people don't need to eat 8 ounce slabs of pork chops every day to remain healthy. You can do pretty well with just a few ounces of sardines or other meat, and butter and yogurt each week.
by VeganForLife
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:47 AM
You can also do pretty well on a vegan diet like I have done for 22 years.
by Transgenders Opressive Males?
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:00 AM
it relates to Lierre with her affiliation with RadLesFes, though I don't know of any statement she has made, just the non-friendly transgender policies of the organization.

Transgender people see themselves as women (or men, for FTM obviously), and I would hardly call them oppressors. How on Earth can you compare them to people who suffer from a mental disorder like BIID? You think trans people should be treated as if they are men (or women) with a mental disease, not accepted for being the gender they most likely have identified with and were probably meant to be since birth?
I have never wanted to join, ruin, bust, sh*t on an all women/lesbian bar or gathering, and don't know anyone who would, but don't treat transgenders as second class citizens, or "men with butchered genitals" for God's sake. We're all supposed to be on the same side.
by sweet
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:09 AM
capitalists everywhere are cheering, including Keith the jetsetter

certainly amazon ranking is THE true measure of success in our society

not surprising that the 95% of people who eat meat would like to read something that validates their diet and carries fallacious arguments about vegetarians

with sales through the roof, all we need now is our friends the SFPD to crack this whole pieing case and all will be well in the world
by Oracle
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:30 AM
Jesus fucking Christ. After reading these comments, I can only come to the conclusion that the world is fucked. People are such fucking assholes. And the posters on both sides of this incident think they know the "answer". Idiots. If this is the state of the human race, then we're all fucked, no matter what ideological breeze you twist in.
by Aaron
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:40 AM
Yes most vegans are young girls and women who started when they were young. But do not forget the creepy guys who become vegan to try and sleep with the young girls. I'm sure your friends are the exception, but look at the group as a hole. It is creepy!
by GoodCleanFun
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:41 AM
you are totally right Bev Jo, also lesbians shouldn't be allowed to go to a "straight" prom, because everyone knows two girls aren't a "real" couple. Why are they trying to crash their "straight" party?
by oh, yes
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 10:49 AM
now I've heard it all. most vegan men became vegan to live out their pedophile/statutory-rape fantasies.

is anyone on this thread even remotely familiar with the scientific method or do random anecdotes and unverifiable stereotypes count for truth these days?

the shit people believe about vegans is insane, no thanks to Keith for throwing more non-scientific anti-veg BS into the mix
by Steve
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:00 AM
Gadzooks! Why don't some of you people just admit that you like bickering?

It seems most people in this thread are looking for opportunities to be offended and righteous ( not just the vegans and/or anarchists ).
by RadFem
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:49 AM
It's clear that many people commenting here have no personal experience or knowledge of how the trans movement (which *is* deeply conservative) has historically tried to destroy the lesbian feminist movement and much needed women-only spaces.
by i love animals AND i love meat
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:39 PM
Wow. Thank you to everyone who agrees that the act of anonymously attacking some defensless person is NEVER something that anyone should commend. There was nothing brave about it, and if you really disagree with Lierre then listen to her and respond calmly. Debate her openly so we can all learn. What do we learn from you pieing her? Nothing except that you're evil, cowardly, immature, AND that she is maybe even saying something that you don't want peope to hear because it derails YOUR cause.
And how dare you write that she should quit whining and get over it? Would you just get over it if someone pied you? I think she is amazing and am so glad she will continue speaking. Saying she has no place at the bookfair or that she's a poser is ridiculous as well. Childish name calling REALLY works well right?
And to everyone who is focusing on the fact that she called the cops: Dude. That is really neither here nor there. Anyone who is being assaulted or has been assaulted will yell for help or yell for the cops; it is instinctive. And what was she supposed to yell? "Anarchist taskforce! Help! Go find those three people, demask them and shame them publicly!?"
I'm sure we all would
A pepper-laced pie in the face? If you want to confront someone, do it directly and in an intelligent manner. Since the said "activists" probably have the debating skills of the common garden slug, I imagine they couldn't hold their own in a reasonable verbal exchange. Resorting to anonymous assault is the work of cowards and intellectual lightweights.
by BB!
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 12:48 PM
Using garden slug as an insult!? That's speciesism! You are deserving of a pie in the face!
by favor
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:03 PM
Can I eat your dog or cat? I'll take any rabbits, birds, or reptiles you might have around too. I bet you feed them really well. I promise to cook them with love.
by exveg
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:16 PM
I was vegetarian for over a quarter of a century until my acupuncturist explained the facts of life to me. Now I feel a lot better physically and also because I am no longer supporting industrial farming by eating lots of soy, rice and wheat, the main vegetarian staples. It feels GOOD to not be a beneficiary or supporter of the destruction of entire ecosystems. I'm happy that my food choices serve to preserve biological diversity by NOT destroying natural ecosystems. I'm also glad that they are local and do not have to be trucked in or imported. But vegans don't really give a shit about these things. All they care about is removing themselves from the ecological niche that is their ancestral inheritance (and prerogative) as a member of the food chain. They want to "save" the animals but not all animals are worthy of compassionate "saving", only the cute, furry or feathered ones. They subscribe to a HIERARCHICAL view of worthiness, just like all religious-fanatics and cultists. It doesn't really matter if animal ( or bug, micro-organism etc.) genocide occurs by other means such as habitat destruction, or the overshooting of the land's carrying capacity. This is not a culture that values the DIVERSITY of life on this planet. At least not to the extent that it values those things that serve humans (and only humans). In this they are in line with fundamentalists and xtians who believe that humans are the pinnacle of "creation" and that everything on the planet is at their disposal to serve them and do with as they will. They won't wear leather, but eco-consumerism and processed food are just fine. And their similarities with the monotheists don't end there. Besides the rigid, hierarchical thinking they are also prone to controlling behavior and outbursts of authoritarianism. I find their SILENCING behavior, their need to crush those with whom they disagree, very disturbing. Their lack of desire for healthy debate on issues that affect all of us and Earth are also worrisome. I think the vegans need to be put on notice. Grow the fuck up and learn to open your mind or become increasingly irrelevant. The rest of us, who vastly outnumber you BTW, will not be intimidated into silence. We're not going to tolerate authoritarian fascists just because they slap a vegan or anarchist label on themselves.
by Monsieur Tofu
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:19 PM
Obviously people are too busy being "one with the Earth" to worry about pesky things like scientific evidence. Maybe Kieth can head back to her faith healer who can cure her by waving a pork chop over her head and meditating for 30 minutes.
by Butterfly Vegan
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:23 PM
I can't believe how many of you so-called "women" are taking on the oppressive white male stance and glazing over what is basically male pie rape of one of the most important womyn of our generation. Lierre braved the hoards of anarchists -even though she may love and respect the law- and spoke her mind. Her book saved my life in more ways than one. For even though I do still consider myself vegan, I feel more at ease with my weekly protein and joint-health meat shakes, and I couldn't feel healthier, I haven't even suffered the ordeal of mentruation since my new diet. Also, instead of ordering my tofu from South Asia, I now visit my friend's local and sustainable tofu making facility downtown. Like the blue things in Avatar, I have learned to bless the animals I hunt around our yard after I kill them providing myself with happy, free range rabbit. She has opened my eyes to the population troubles and I support an enforced death penalty on anyone over 35 years old so there will be more for the rest of us to hunt and gather. What people need to realize is that you can still be vegan while taking care of your health by eating meat. If it wasn't for my meat diet, I may have not survived the e coli I got last month.
I hope that is food for thought for some of you here.
by 000
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:31 PM
Thank you for your comment. It's right on.

I am still vegetarian, but I must say that this whole fiasco has made me want to go back and really look closely at my diet. Some of the most important points I agree with are the issues of DIVERSITY, ECOSYSTEMS, and long term SUSTAINABILITY.

I have known for sometime now that soy is incredible dangerous for humans to consume (http://tinyurl.com/yamelck, http://tinyurl.com/aogs37, and http://tinyurl.com/yex4dgu).

We have far exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth, due to oil. And oil transports grain and wheat products everywhere. When that is gone, the diet issue will really be a huge question. Those cities incapable of supporting year round agriculture are in trouble. There are no easy answers, but the blindness of the cult like vegans are disturbing, and their thinly veiled death threats (NAAL statement posted above) should be taken seriously by the radical community as they are anti-abortion like in their rhetoric.
by 000
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:38 PM
"She has opened my eyes to the population troubles and I support an enforced death penalty on anyone over 35 years old so there will be more for the rest of us to hunt and gather.?

WTF? That just sounds stupid, creepy, and fascist. It also sounds like the movie Logan's Run. If you are serious, and I think you are, that is Pol Pot evil. I sorta get the feeling that you are probably a vegan posing as a Keith supporter, and kinda vegan 'false-flag' post.

Oh, the joy of anonymous posts.
by VIDEO
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:45 PM
the version with Benny Hill was hidden, so here's a silent version
by skink
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:47 PM
Everyone here could go die of swine flu tomorrow, and it wouldn't make a dent in animal consumption or the rate of decline of the planet.

That is because *systematic* change is required. In other words, the rules and practices involved in the whole system of food production and industrial production would have to change at the national or global level, rather than at the individual consumer choice level in a store. Otherwise, there is a really poor track record of consumer choice really making a difference.

On the other hand, passing democratic rules at the large scale such as the Clean Air and Water acts, the Int'l Whaling commission rules, meat inspection and so forth have produced fast results. Legal challenges to practices based on the Endangered Species act or Ralph Nader's challenges to the car industry have produced large change.
by jesus
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 2:00 PM
your ignorance is astounding.
by anon
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 2:48 PM
wait what?

i don't give shit about being vegan, but how is this author an "effective activist"?? by arguing against veganism?

well you know if veganism doesn't fucking matter, than arguing against it matters even fucking less.
plus she is doing something that the meat industry pays people to do usually........

what a fucktard.
by me
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 2:59 PM
It's interesting, wouldn't pie someone for writing a dumb book, but I'd probably punch them for calling the pigs over getting pied.

Everyone involved sounds like a sucka.
by right
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 3:27 PM
She effectively calls people names and effectively oppresses trans people, and I guess that passes for activism these days.
by diana
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 3:42 PM
Bev Jo, you're awesome, sister, and brave, and I have loved reading your words. I'm thrilled that Lierre has solid allies. Thankfully a little more than I'm appalled that anarchists don't get (and don't want to get?) misogyny. A woman, a petite, disabled, middle-aged woman with severe diet-induced (vegan! diet-induced) spinal degeneration, gets assaulted from behind by three perpetrators, and injured, and put at risk for further permanent spinal injury beyond the cayenne pepper forced in her eyes, and suddenly vegan anarchists want to talk about her talking with the cops. I'm wondering: Do you have to stand on your heads to pretend that level a playing field? It'd be so convenient for your rich-brat white-guy boy-club privilege-perpetuators if no woman ever asked for the system's help, no matter how few options otherwise she had. Let abused women die, let assaulted women simply accept it, let rape victims remain behind locked doors -- whatever it takes to keep this illusion going that anarchists are "outside" the system and thoroughly and completely opposed to it, and victimized women, when they have the guts to ask for help, are somehow "inside" and "traitors" to the cause. Lierre is awesome, and brave, and brilliant, and an incredible writer, and she deserves so much more than this. And yet I've heard from some of her allies, and they are a diverse, and also amazing, set of people ... some of whom are determined to ensure this never happens again.
by exveg
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:46 PM
How is Lierre "effectively oppressing trans people"? Real examples please. Not he said, she said or someone else's opinions. Don't skirt the issue, concrete and verifiable examples only. Thank you.
by Travis
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 4:50 PM
"It's just a continuation of how men act in general." -- Bev Jo

No it isn't, Bev Jo. You're wrong and generalizing to a ridiculous and almost comical extent. Do I smell a hint misandry? I hope not.

I'm a man and I support what Lierre's doing. I don't conduct my life like the clowns that threw a pie in her face. Be careful with sanctimony. It's a more dangerous and myopia-inducing drug than anything on the street.




by Reality
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 5:04 PM
It is, in fact, how men act in general. You may be an exception, but that doesn't change the rule.
by Travis
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 5:47 PM
Sorry, Reality, it isn't a rule. Do you have a source for this "rule"? Do you have hard scientific evidence that it's a rule? Do you have
some studies you can quote that prove this is an irrefutable rule? I think not.

What I do believe is that you need to engage is some fair-minded critical thinking. Generalizations about any group of people, be it men or women, is simplistic thinking. At its worst, this sort of thinking is quite dangerous (cf. war, genocide, monomania, etc.).







by tula
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 5:59 PM
"Murder of innocent non-humans?" "Animal holocaust?" ROFL! Man, you guys are real whack-jobs. Seems like you don't care much for human life. I like animals. They taste yummy when grilled and served on a bun.
by Reality
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:09 PM
I have personal experience. That's all I need.

It's easy to ignore the realities of the oppressed when you're not one of them. However, not all men do this. Read some Robert Jensen.
by Planet Saver
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:23 PM
I want to save the world!

I will start with eating Lierre to save the world. Then I will eat a vegan to save the world. Then I will write a book about which is better to eat for saving the world; stupid, violent, privileged, anti-intellectual, white, male, pedophile vegans or anti-anarchist, former-vegan, anti-civ, disabled, lesbian, trans-hating, uber-fragile, feminist, meat-eaters covered in pie and hot sauce.

I hope I will get invited to the Anarchist's Book Fair next year. I hope everyone will understand that after my book is written there will be no need for the kind of discussion going on above, because my book will be *the* definitive work on the one, true Planet-Saving Diet™. I'm super excited about this project. I hope everyone who cares about animal rights, people rights, soil rights, capitalist rights, anarchist rights, womyn's rights, trans rights, rapist rights, nemotode rights, tree rights, trust-fund rights, comrade's rights, hierarchical rights, pie rights, and cop rights will send me $5 to support my research. Also, I hope Lierre will step up and turn herself over for this important research project. Additionally, I'll need a vegan to eat—any will do since they are all stupid, violent, privileged, anti-intellectual, white, male pedophiles. Please contact me at planetsavingdiet.com to donate your otherwise useless self to this much-needed work.

Additionally, I'll need folks to contribute recipes since I don't want this to be a stale volume full of clinical research data. I want to make it fun with pictures and recipes and ideas about community and post-peak-oil survival! So, if you'd like to contribute, please contact meat the above url. Also, if you'd like to be a recipe tester, please step up! We can't have the book going out with untested recipes. I will likely be able to provide you with Lierre/vegan meat so you won't have to source it on your own, as that would be illegal, and we don't want nobody calling the cops—not until I get pied at the Fair that is ;)

Thanks everyone! Your love of the planet is evident from your many comments so I know this book is really needed and will be wildly popular.
by beforewisdom
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:36 PM
Since this incident happened ( which I condemn ) I have seen a number of urban paleolithics as well as sundry Keith fans make the generalization that vegans are like fundamentalist Christians who are so close mined that they will not even read Keith's book.

I've read a few reports by United Nations researchers that list livestock production as a major contributor toward environmental destruction.

I also just finished a book called "The China Study". The China Study was the largest, most comprehensive human nutrition study in history. The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.

Dr. T Colin Campbell, the scientist who ran the study and the author of the book has been doing nutrtion research for 50 years. Longer than probably any of us have even been alive.

Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

His message: the more animal products people eat the more diseases they get. He highly recommends a plant based diet as the result of The China Study and what he has learned over his 50 year career as a nutrition researcher.

People who are educated in the subjects Lierre Keith wrote about in her book and who have devoted their careers to researching the subjects she wrote about ( versus 1 book ) have the exact opposite set of opinions from hers about what the facts are.

As far as I know Lierre Keith has a liberal arts background, only. The reviews of her book on Amazon.com are mostly positive, but even those positive reviews mention factual errors she made in her book.

Given Lierre Keith's lack of credentials as a researcher for the subjects she wrote about in her book and the incredible credentials of the United Nations researchers, Dr. Campbell as well The China Study, why would I want to spend my to read her book ?

I know this is the internet, but credentials count.

Am I really being close minded not wanting to take the time to read her book given the weight of the experts and credential on the other side of her views?







by you are right
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:52 PM
if you want to learn about some of the less crazy ideas in her book, just read "Against the Grain" by Richard Manning. And he has credentials.
by Sarah
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 6:54 PM
Vegans get all the nutrition they need if they eat the right combination of plant-based foods. So, how, exactly, did she come down with this bone disease? Ask any doctor, (I just talked to mine), and they will confirm that if she was malnourished this was due to her own ignorance--she didn't know what to eat for proper nutrition--and not to a plant based diet.

Anyone who eats animals denies the fact that animals, like humans, feel pain. Under the present system of factory farming, there is no way to consume meat without condoning the outright torture of animals. If you do no support torture of living creatures, then you should not eat meat. Or dairy for that matter.
by Travis
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:09 PM
Reality:

A blanket statement was made about all men, which works out to a claim about roughly 3.5 billion individuals. If it's irrefutable, then it can't just be based on the experience of one person or a handful. That's subjective and doesn't constitute proof. Reading the opinions of Jensen also does not provide proof of the statement. Can you cite specific non-biased scientific studies that prove it? Again, I don't think so.

People are more complex than the cartoonish images that irrationality conjures. I'm well aware of what women have faced throughout history. I'm also very aware that hatred is going to get us nowhere as a species and that a true feminist does not sink into that quagmire.



by Reality
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:15 PM
You obviously have no clue about feminism or male privilege. Gee, why am I not surprised? You're not worth my time or effort.
by anyne
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:15 PM
The pier was not the man who introduced her
by Craig Wiesner
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 7:23 PM
Violence against someone with whom you disagree is unacceptable. There was hot pepper sauce in that pie. Such attacks don't help anyone and only make those who commit such attacks look like thugs.
by seriously
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 8:45 PM
A snitch? Are you fucking kidding me? For reporting a violent act taken against her where absolutely no one helped even though it took place in front of hundreds of people? I hope you're not one of those people who thinks that a rape victim is a cocktease.

This pieing is nothing more than a cruel, inhumane action taken against someone who simply has different opinions. It is a terrorist act. And one of the many reasons I left the rigid, sometimes-bordering-on-fascist-and-doesn't-this-drive-the-point-home veg*n community. I'm disgusted.
by jaja
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:25 PM
the melodrama on here is rich. pieing no longer just equals rape, now it is terrorism as well. poor lierre kieth. poor clowns! how did her fragile ex-vegan body handle the impact of the filling and crust. she'll never be able to eat dessert again.
by Jeff Ott
( jeff_ott_15 [at] yahoo.com ) Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 9:29 PM
Well I have managed to not delve into the subject of veganism for almost 40 years, but the events of last weekend at the anarchist book fair put me over the top. Vegan activism has really rubbed me the wrong way since I first started noticing it creep into punk rock in the middle 1980s. It rubbed me the wrong way for the following reasons:
1. The people act just like the “pro-life” movement in their absolutism. We are absolutely right, everyone else is absolutely wrong. No space for any kind of discussion at all. You are evil murderer and we are messianic saviors.
2. The people act just like the “pro-life” movement in their propaganda. Pictures of gross aborted fetuses, pictures of gross vivisected animals. The idea being to overwhelm the viewer with grossness rather than reason or argument. In truth after dissecting and harvesting organs and limbs from 6 human cadavers, I find vegan propaganda and “pro-life” propaganda really funny. What used to be gross really isn’t shit compared to the removal of the complete urinary and reproductive tract/organs from a deceased human male.
3. Single issue activism. I’m the first to admit that there are plenty of vegan activists that do other activism, but the bulk of them (that I have met, in the thousands, in 40+ states, over multiple decades) will go on and on about how it is about Justice, Anti-Corporate, etc., but would they ever show up for other activism that is also about justice, etc? Nope.
4. The people involved frequently exhibited outward arrogance to those of us that are either non-housed, non-white, non-male, non-employed, etc. As a long term homeless person I found it especially odd when these vegan kids at UC Berkeley would actually try to convince me there was something wrong with eating meat from dumpsters.
5. Just like many single issue movements, veganism seemed to heavily attract people at a time in their lives when they are forming an identity (adolescence) and the quick validation of being absolutely right when the rest of the world is absolutely wrong was too easy to pass up.
6. Over time I started to notice that various groups started to carry out actions against American Indians regarding hunting, they seemed to totally lack any understanding of how racist they were acting, and when it was pointed out they didn’t seem to care. Forcing people to be agrarian farmers that don’t hunt started on this continent with the urging Thomas Jefferson, one of the most racist, child-raping, genocidal maniacs of all time. Even if it was reasonable to urge American Indians to stop hunting (which it is not) doing it in a way that mimics previous generations attempts to EXTERMINATE them really shows how the movement is so built on “absolute rightness”, contrary evidence be dammed.
7. They seemed to oblivious to the fact that if you got rid of all of the factory farming, and all of the animal food production, and even if everyone in America stopped eating animals, you would still reside in one of the ten worst empires the earth has ever seen. Eventually I concluded that they are at baseline about reform and not revolt.
8. The whole idea that humans shouldn’t eat other animals is really a way of declaring us superior to the rest of nature, because we can rise above predation. If you ever have the privilege of living in nature or without shelter for awhile you will quickly realize the absurdity of this thinking.
9. Some of them actually started discussing how to feed predatory animals without killing animals, which always results in overpopulation of the animals they eat, which results in the overgrazing by those animals, which ruins the ecology generally.
10. After quite a few years of study in a wide variety of subjects, which eventually culminated in a degree in nursing (save your breath, I’m glad we experiment on animals, and look forward to the day we do it on people also) I realized a number of assertions I had heard over the years are really kind of stupid:
A – Humans are not meant to eat meat. Meant? By who? God? Evolution? Where did you find this information? The bible? No god = no intent = no meant to.
B – Humans digestive tracts obviously are meant for vegetarianism – uh, right, that’s why we can’t break down cellulose.
C - Eating meat leaves undigested rotting meat in the intestines and this cause’s colon cancer. (This is the reason cited for people needing colonic hydrotherapy). I’ve seen the insides of the colon of a few people now and there is no nothing left inside.
11. Lastly, and most importantly, I have seen some facets of the veganism movement that looked like cult behavior. I never saw them all at once so I didn’t dwell on it, but here is a list of qualifiers of a cult:
a) People are put in physically or emotionally distressing situations-----(not so much with veganism)
b) Their problems are reduced to one simple explanation, which is repeatedly emphasized----(totally)
c) They receive unconditional love, acceptance, and attention from a charismatic leader----(or in this case leader and or group)
d) They get a new identity based on the group----(completely)
e) They are subject to entrapment, isolation from friends, relatives, and the mainstream culture, and their access to information is severely controlled-------( I would have said no but, if you consider it, some vegans do a kind of self imposed isolation based on diet and how “normal” people don’t understand so it’s lame to be around them. There access to information is not limited, but within the social group only vegan affirming information is acceptable, so information actually is limited. The three idiots who attacked the author for presenting views that are not vegan affirming is clearly proof of this.)
f) The threat of harm or retaliation if the member leaves. This is really brought me back to the idea that vegan groups act as cults. This whole incident we are discussing IS LITERALLY THE RETRIBUTION FOR LEAVING THE CULT. Veganism is not a cult of one prophet, all powerful. It is a cult of one idea, all powerful, and the price for leaving is violence.
The responses on indymedia also brought up a few issues for me. There was this recurring theme of “she called the cops at the anarchist gathering, ew that’s so lame”. You can call yourself an anarchist till you are blue in the face but if you attack people because they don’t live the way you want them to you’re not an anarchist, you’re a fucking cop. So go cry to your mommy that someone broke the anarchy rules. I would have called myself an anarchist until I saw what happened when my community was faced with an active pedophile and EVERYONE refused to deal with it except for the police. I would’ve called myself an anarchist but I saw what happened when my community was repeatedly confronted with domestic violence and EVERYONE refused to deal with it except for the police. All I know for sure is that there are way too many people on the earth, and how we do food currently is unsustainable, and the whole idea of negatively organizing against anyone who is trying to publicly raise the issue is INSANE.

http://www.lawrencegaltman.com/Naugbio/CAD...
by really
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:04 PM
It was fabulous to read your 10,000 words worth of non-scientific personal observations. Not.

"I really haven't thought about it but let me share my extended thesis..."

Yawn. Skip. Next
by Desu
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:11 PM
Mr. Ott your comment was pure win, please post moar
by North American Animal Liberation Press Office
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:13 PM
Press Release- http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/18641232.php

XZ: "yeah - Peter Young and Jerry Vlasak have no sense of politics"

You say that like its a bad thing...


RF: "men who rape are generally just your average dudes" and
Aaron: "But do not forget the creepy guys who become vegan to try and sleep with the young girls. I'm sure your friends are the exception, but look at the group as a hole. It is creepy!'

Really? Is this really true? I had no idea....


Lierre Keith is no anarchist, no comrade, only a self-serving dipshit trying to make money selling books. I'll say it again: She got what she deserved, and will serve as an example for those who continue to advocate for the oppression and murder of those weaker than themselves. Sympathyzers with brutalizing regimes have historically been held accountable, sooner or later. Seems to me she got off pretty lightly with a little pepper-laced pie on the noggin.

Jerry Vlasak
North American Animal Liberation Press Office

by Hanging my head in shame
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:16 PM
Fuck, you people are morons!

Seriously, how fucking blind are you to your defensive posturing?

Jeff, all you're doing is repeating Strawman 101.

exveg and Butterfly 'Vegan', your arrogance is nauseating. Ignorant fucks.
by Bev Jo
Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 11:49 PM
Thank you so much, Diana. It would be nice to talk sometime, but how to make contact? I also really appreciate your bravery too, and dear exveg and others.

How is the truth not obvious? Lierre is not making money from her book -- she is basically donating her life, and fighting to try and save the planet. She begins her talk with saying how many species have become extinct today, and every day. She has ideas how to stop this, but she's the enemy?

For many, this is obviously a game.

Yes, some men are doing good things and can be allies. Those are the ones who recognize the female-hatred and Lesbian-hatred and ableism in attacking Lierre. Just look at the video and see the cowardice in the men who attacked Lierre.

This website answers a lot of this very well --
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/03/15/vegan-nut-jobs-attack-lierre-keith

Objecting to oppression and attack is laughed at. May what they do return to them. Lierre is still in pain from the attack. Why is this a joke?

The same arguments are posted over and over. Just read her book.

Plants feel too. Making any species more important and more revered is what got us to where we are now. It's honorable to not want to hurt any living being, but that is impossible without dying. Again, my personal experience and from reading these letters makes me think that for the majority of vegans, it's about just using the issue to feel superior, to bully, and be cruel. That's why they just don't get what was wrong with Lierre and why they attack her without even reading her book. Those attitudes have done tremendous damage to my community internationally.

The few vegans and vegetarians who are not like this are supporting Lierre. They are the ones who really care about other animals and the earth, and are kind and caring. We are allies and the destruction being done to the earth is not an issue they use for their own ego and power.


by a fan
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:05 AM
Jeff,

I know you to the extent that you probably could match my face to my name. I want to say that I am disappointed to read your tired list of straw man, red herring, naturalistic, and base rate fallacies. We have heard them all before. They have all been used over and over by people like yourself who enjoy eating the flesh of animals who cannot speak up for themselves.

You don't have to be single-issue to be vegan. You don't have to care about eating meat out of dumpsters (and you don't have to care about the people who do care). You can be vegan yourself and support the rights of native people to hunt, like many vegans do. You can be vegan and know that animal rights is not the only problem we face. You can acknowledge that you will not agree with everyone within the animal rights movement, yet that does not change that your personal actions affect the lives of hundreds of animals every year.

Feel free to criticize the path that certain vegans have chosen to take, and feel free to criticize aspects of the movement -- but what you have NOT done is explain how exploiting animals for your own gain is ethically acceptable. Your rant is an attempted character assassination of the entire animal rights movement, but it does not address the ideas that are at its very core.

Best,
a longtime fan and supporter
by vegan
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:23 AM
"Plants feel too."

No, they don't. But you probably don't believe in science.

"Making any species more important and more revered is what got us to where we are now. It's honorable to not want to hurt any living being, but that is impossible without dying."

Straw man. Vegans are not trying to not "hurt any living thing," they are trying to respect life and give equal consideration to the interests of all sentient beings. There is no hierarchical structure in veganism. All living things receive the basic right to live unimpeded by humans barring absolute necessity or extreme duress. For instance, if Lierre did successfully destroy the electric grid, (most) vegans would willingly consume the flesh of human and non-human animals in order to survive.

Even if your inane idea that plants can feel were true, "plant rights" is not a possibility because we need to eat. I would agree that vegans should feel obligated to research the sources of their food and the techniques used in growing it (or grow it themselves). Anyway, a sustainable vegan world would be based on perennial permaculture (ie, food forests where native insects and animals are encouraged to live). Permaculture would be a version of "plant welfare," you could say. Which is our only option since our survival depends on us consuming them.

If you want to argue against veganism, you'll need to prove the necessity of eating meat. And to do that, you'll need more than yours and Lierre's anecdotal stories and Weston A Price's crazy theories about native people.

To a vegan, everything is equal except when necessary for our survival. To you, everything is equal except we are ABOVE. To you, the entertainment of your taste buds trumps the life and desires of other sentient animals. You act as if you are living in one with the earth, yet you are doing nothing but consume the earth. Your mentality is no different than anti-feminists who claim that women enjoy being subjugated -- but based on your anti-trans stance, this is probably not much of a concern to you.
by assuming they do read
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:41 AM
What will they think when they learn that Keith is a fan of genocide of most of the worlds population at the hands of electical grid saboteurs?

They'll be like, uh...
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:48 AM
>>No, they don't. But you probably don't believe in science.

Yet neither do you since you don't quote any substantive data to backup your arguments. And what is up with your obsessive use of the word "strawman"? Most of your arguments are thin and contradictory.

>>"plant rights" is not a possibility because we need to eat.

That is my favorite line, and perfectly absurd. A meat eater (which I am not) could easily say, "animal rights is not a possibility because we need to eat". For those cultures and bioregions that don't have access to agriculture, then it is a perfectly reasonable sentence. Furthermore, if our unsustainable industrial system didn't use oil to bring you your fresh veggies across continents, then you would very likely find that local food production may very well be based on animal resources (depending on your bioregion), much like indigenous cultures lived for a 100,000 years.

As I have already written above, Keith's and Jensen's arguments presume a crash is going to happen, and I think that is a reasonable assumption given the current ecocide, plus peak oil, etc, etc. They actually argue to save as many lives as possible prior to that event (I know Jensen does, but I haven't heard Keith talk on this, or actually read her statements - and I should say no one has posted direct quotes here, they just attack her with paraphrases that sound ridiculous).

Another thing the vegan's do over and over is denounce Weston A Price, but provide nothing substantive to challenge their research (other than being listed on politically motivated sites about quacks), which is misdirection and direct avoidance of a substantive response. It's an ad hominem attack. I think indigenous cultures have every right to survive by eating animals and they need no justification, certainly not by someone living in city which requires the importation of resources stolen from indigenous lands (via our military empire).

Ecological sciences are very clear about balances in species populations, and abuse of ecological resources by humans is no exception. This applies equally to both animal and agricultural resources (fresh water, topsoil, etc). You also accuse meat eaters alone that "yet you are doing nothing but consume the earth", yet refuse to recognize the resources vegans consume (oil for transportation, fresh water for growth, and everything associated with an industrial city that keeps you alive capable of delivering the food you consume). Living sustainably is not about consumption but about recycling and balance. Almost no humans on this planet are living sustainably, and that is the core of the issue Jensen (i presume Keith) is trying to address.

The problem with single issue vegans is that they choose to only see one small part of much bigger picture, and almost never have a good understanding of ecology. As I stated above, I am vegetarian because I oppose factory farms, but there are times and places that make perfect sense to consume the flesh of an animal, so long as it is in balance with the ecosystem, and with respect to the health of the species. And I do oppose all forms of animal cruelty.

Jeff Ott is right about those who have lived very close to the land. You understand something much deeper about your animal nature and the predator/prey relationship. It is one of respect for life, contrary to what city-living-middle-class-vegans say.
by Travis
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 3:52 AM
"You obviously have no clue about feminism or male privilege. Gee, why am I not surprised? You're not worth my time or effort." -- Reality

You obviously have nothing to back up your claim except for simplistic assumptions and leaps of "logic". That's the usual manner in which the intellectually weak dismiss those who do not agree with them. (see Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or most post-modernism for example).
by Steve
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 4:29 AM
People have mentioned that the picture in this thread was not of Keith's own incident of being hit with a pie.

Well, here is the youtube video

Again, I don't condone this act. I'm a vegan and I think hitting her with a pie gave her publicity that will help increase the readership of her book while making vegans look like children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPayTWlAQ0k
by K_S
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:34 AM
Situationist, lifestylist idiots attack primitivist at book fair. This is followed by a discussion in which every stereotype of anyone vaguely progressive is painted to be in the press and MSM.

Anyone here actually got any politics, or are you all so buried in divisive identity sh*t that you can't smell what's happening outside your tiny, alientated little groups anymore.

There are no anarchists here, only posers.
by pjnoir
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:45 AM
I hope more and more people hear of this aggressive attack because if your supporters find it replusive. I guess eating all those grains make you violent. You don't have to be a vegetarian to eat vegetables - I choose mine without all that BS Corn and wheat grains and w/o the violent politics Peta and veggies seem to embrace.
by E. K. Sommer
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 6:44 AM
The act of eating meat is not the issue. Human beings are omnivores. But we have become removed from the process of gathering our own food, be it vegetables or animals. We do not notice the suffering or animals in factory farms, nor do we realize the damage done by hybridized vegetables and high-intensity vegetable farming. I don't know many healthy vegetarians, and I know no healthy vegans. I tried that lifestyle back in the '70s, and despite my "balanced" diet I became very ill. I have since adopted a more reasonable approach that includes meat and dairy in my diet in small amounts. And these products are purchased from a friend's farm. I honor the creatures whose energy I consume, and I know they are treated well.

Instead of advocating violence (such as throwing pies laced with cayenne pepper in an author's face), perhaps you outraged vegetarians should turn your attention to the CAFOs and fight for legislation that makes it illegal for mega-industrial farming operations to exist. If we returned to bio-regional farming, we would all be healthier -- animals included.

Remember, please, that vegetarians consume "animals" everyday in the form of bacteria. I also caution that if vegans and vegetarians want their opinions to be heard, they had better respect the opinions of others!
by Barry Bliss
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:09 AM
"Message to Keith and others who promote oppression, repression and murder of the innocent, and destruction of the planet, however misinformedly well-intentioned- "No more free ride!""

Jerry Vlasak

I abhor factory farms and don't buy anything from them that I know of.
As far as I know, neither does Lierre.

The fact is you using a computer promotes oppression and the destruction of the planet.
Pretty much every act does.
You are isolating one and saying "no more" but that's just the one you picked to say "no more" about.
Driving a car (if you ever do) is destructive to living creatures and the air.
If you use electronic devices or electricity you are guilty of the things you propose to be against.
That may be, at least partially, what Lierre means regarding some vegan's immaturity or lack of willingness to be honest across the board.
I am not for animal experimentation, etc.
I am also not for pets (slaves).
I just know that I am doing all the things you say you are against by using this computer.
You are too.

As far as the murder of innocent creatures is concerned, any vegan who lives in America and buys/eats apples from New Zealand has blood on their hands.

You may be doing much more harm to animals than some guy that hunts and lives in his cabin with his wife and kids.
That line of reasoning is not working with people who are not afraid to get honest with themselves.

PS I don't know you and I am not really a part of any movement per se.
My guess is you are involved in some good work and have some important things to say, but I disagree with you here.
PPS I am bored with how some of you posters are exaggerating to protect your shaky positions.
Let's get real.
I see someone is putting together a reply book to Lierre's.
Cool.
I would maybe read that (I read her book--damned good.)
If something is true, let's hear about it.
PPPS--I am an artist.
Will I now be pied with cayenne gunk one day because I was involved in debate with Jerry?
I should now fear for my safety.
That's just terrorism.
by huh, wuh
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:50 AM
Primarily, you seem to forget this is a comment thread, not a thesis, in your demands for final absolute proof by folks here.

Second, stop with the tired, "Oh what about the Inuit" crap when talking about vegetarianism. ("For those cultures and bioregions that don't have access to agriculture" blah blah blah.) Most vegans in the US are talking about food produced in the US. Humans are diverse, as are natural environments, and obviously one solution will not work the same for those in the US, the Arctic, or the Sahara. That's such a red herring. Surely you are not really arguing that every last person has to eat like people with no growing season or no water.

Next, you should do more reading and research on your own. People here have pointed you to resources but you refuse to go look them up yourself, as if people in this comment thread are supposed to reproduce every single point here for your satisfaction.

Weston Price, the supposed guru of the Weston Price Foundation, was thoroughly debunked in the quakery website (and plenty of other places). You should actually check it out yourself. If you bothered to, instead of just writing it off as "politically motivated" (where in the hell did that come from?), you'd see that the site is SCIENCE motivated. I can't find political motivations. And it's not an ad hominem to point to what a crazy he was. Many if not most of his theories about butter and nutrition etc carry on in the foundation today. The same foundation Keith says is one of the best resources out there.

As for the paraphrases you don't like, well, hmmm, how 'bout you actually go out and read some Keith. I mean, my god, how many words have you expended here defending her and you don't even know what the hell she has actually written. Just google her name and you can find interviews and whatnot that are the sources of those paraphrases about saboteurs shutting down the electrical grid -- best of luck to everyone with no power because you've got 13 days to figure out how not to starve to death -- or whatever other misanthropic and crazy things have been quoted here.

If you are not sure of her trans-phobia or any of the related paraphrases here, then go look at the group principles that she's sworn her loyalty to. I can't do it for you.

I just don't know if I've ever seen a defender of someone be so mis- or under-informed. Willfully, even. You've had days to read at least what's online, if not her book itself. And yet you comment and comment and comment with no resources or references outside of this thread. It's truly puzzling.
by okey dokey
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:59 AM
You guys have gone from calling it a pieing to assault to beating to rape (to pornography with the video) and now terrorism.

Just call it like it truly is -- Lierre Kieth was crucified on Saturday -- and forever more will she be your messiah for whom you will take every word from as the absolute truth, the unquestionable word of god, no matter how little sense it makes or how poorly researched it is.

Fortunately, this is the 21st century and this time we have the crucifixion on tape: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/16/18641410.php
by Barry Bliss
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:13 AM
As far as I can tell, we are mainly discussing two things.
1. Whether or not we agree with Lierre.
2.Whether or not we agree it was right to pie her-with added pepper-whether you agree with her or not.

My stand on #1 is simply that I find her book to express my current position on this subject better than just about any other I have read so far.
My stand on #2 is simply that I believe she was physically attacked--which is terrorism.
I am against the pieing of a speaker whether I agree with them or not.

That's it.
I am open to hearing anything put forward, but realize that if you exaggerate, or attempt to be clever instead of speaking form the heart that you will probably be dismissed as untrustworthy.
by scarrrrry
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:28 AM
your use of the term terrorism is the exaggeration

or do you really think this pieing is akin to airplanes flying into buildings or shooting up airports or improvised explosive devices?

if not, then terrorism is such a broad term in your usage, from mass murder to pieing, that it's virtually meaningless, even though you still try to use it for emotive effect

either way, your use of terrorism for this is easily ridiculed

by Ed
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:33 AM
People calling Lierre Keith a "vegan antagonist" are volunteering to be victims in the same way as someone who purposely walks into the path of a moving car.

If what she writes has no merit, then why are some vegans reacting with such anger? Odd.
by KO Bisson
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:37 AM
Stop the our way or no way attitude you elitist vegans. You all make me sick!! How do you expect people to make better choices when you are shoving your choices down their throat. Cut the our way or no way attitude................ you are turning more people off to Veganism than Lierre Keith is. Everyone has to find their own way. There is no right way or wrong way. So someone has a different opinion than yours welcome to life! To the jerks who threw the pie?! Thanks for making us look even crazier to non vegans! Yes I am a vegan...mostly raw. As long as people are making better choices to eat clean (organic) that's all we should care about.
by well it goes like this
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:45 AM
Why do people get so mad at Fox News? Well, because they spew lies and half-truths to prop up a faulty agenda AND millions of people watch and believe everything they say. In Keith's case, the agenda is to directly attack all vegetarians as she sorts out her own personal issues and conflicts.

It has nothing to do with the veracity of the source -- Keith is terribly flawed and with a liberal arts background is not qualified to write a book based on research -- but it's about the bad/untrue information seeping out and becoming conventional wisdom.


yeesh, like that's so hard to understand
We'll find them. They'll pay.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:23 AM
>>Primarily, you seem to forget this is a comment thread, not a thesis, in your demands for final absolute proof by folks here.

You guys are the one writing shoddy responses in your counterpoints, not me.

>>Second, stop with the tired, "Oh what about the Inuit" crap when talking about vegetarianism. ("For those cultures and bioregions that don't have access to agriculture" blah blah blah.) Most vegans in the US are talking about food produced in the US.

That is exactly the point. Food produced in the middle of the U.S. in the grain belt needs oil to transport it to cities. When that oil runs out, how will you get this food to cities?? That is unsustainable. Further, are you aware that the fresh underground water table providing nearly all the water for the grain belt in the U.S. is nearly gone?

And why is the issue of indigenous cultures crap? Are you really saying that indigenous cultures should go vegan? If you are, that is exactly the mentality of genocidal and racist imperialists that slaughtered them in the first place. Basically white people telling brown people how to eat and survive. It's the epitome of racism.

>>Humans are diverse, as are natural environments, and obviously one solution will not work the same for those in the US, the Arctic, or the Sahara. That's such a red herring. Surely you are not really arguing that every last person has to eat like people with no growing season or no water.

I am arguing that is more sustainable for people living in the arctic to survive off of animal resources than it is off of agriculture. That is not a red herring (a distraction) but a central key argument for the absurdity of religious veganism. I am saying that diet, a sustainable diet, will be based on the ability to grow or hunt food based on bioregions

>>People here have pointed you to resources but you refuse to go look them up yourself, as if people in this comment thread are supposed to reproduce every single point here for your satisfaction.

I have read quite a bit of research. You are the ones claiming that others are unscientific. I am calling out your bullshit. If you can back up your claims then do it. Stop saying something is unscientific and demonstrate it here. I raised the issue of the ecological sciences which are very clear about balanced ecosystems and the use of natural resources. You ignore that concept like most vegans do.

>>Weston Price, the supposed guru of the Weston Price Foundation, was thoroughly debunked in the quakery website (and plenty of other places). You should actually check it out yourself.

I have read it. The quackery website is about as scientific as the 'skeptics' website, which is entirely politically motivated (to get grant monies to speak to true believers). These people all tend to paid for and funded by big pharma and capitalist industries.

>>As for the paraphrases you don't like, well, hmmm, how 'bout you actually go out and read some Keith.

If you noticed above, I intend to read Keith's work. I happen to know her ideas about civ are similar to that of Jensen (but I suspect Jensen is much more careful with his words). I would abhor stupid statements about 'genocide' if Keith ever said them. But it is you guys that claim she is genocidal. Where is the evidence? Bring it, don't just paraphrase it, quote it. It's your claim, not mine, so back it up with some direct evidence. I will denounce her if she said that. But lets be clear, the crux of this issue is her right to speak which I support. I also made arguments as to why a crash is likely, which is at the core of Jensen's arguments. I think they are reasonable. I also think they speak directly to a sustainable human civilization. My core argument is that even if you are vegan and living in cities, you don't live sustainably and it's foolish to think otherwise.

>>If you are not sure of her trans-phobia or any of the related paraphrases here, then go look at the group principles that she's sworn her loyalty to. I can't do it for you.

I really know nothing of the fights between trans and lesbians, nor do I care to focus on them in this discussion.

>>I just don't know if I've ever seen a defender of someone be so mis- or under-informed. Willfully, even. You've had days to read at least what's online, if not her book itself. And yet you comment and comment and comment with no resources or references outside of this thread. It's truly puzzling.

Like I said, I am not defending her thesis per se, but her right to speak them. The parts of her thesis that I know about from reading both volumes of Endgame by Jensen have many valid points, and at the core of them is about developing a sustainable culture outside capitalism. I honestly don't believe that it would be possible for anyone (well, very very few) to be vegan without capitalism and industrial civ. (e.g. oil for growing and transportation in mass quantities). I would hope you agree that oil use is not only unsustainable but a death sentence for us on the earth (via global warming and the destruction of ~50,000 species per year).

Being vegan is a luxury for middle class city dwellers in the heart of the empire. And when that empire crashes, and it will, that luxury will be gone.

by anti-civ
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:44 AM
It's patently false. Read the whole interview here:

http://www.lierrekeith.com/aric_mcbayinterview.htm
by anti-civ
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:48 AM
That interview is with Aric McBay, who is co-writing a book with Keith and Jensen on strategies for the environmentalist movement. I'm sure throwing cayenne-laced pies at radical environmentalist activists is not one of them.
by yeah, nailed it
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:01 PM
just after I specifically said different people (remember references to arctic and sahara?!?) might have to eat differently, you put words in my mouth about me prescribing that Inuits eat carrots for a living. that type of shit is exactly why they other person on here kept calling out your straw man arguments. you just want to argue for argument sake, and you could just as well do it without any of us here saying peep. you put words in our mouths and then argue with that. completely ridonculus

all of your infatuation with indigenous peoples sounds like stupid hippy shit to me. how many retarded hippies ran out and started wearing leather birkenstocks or fringe jackets thinking that shit brought them closer to the earth without having clue one that their leather was factory-farmed? lots

"I intend to read Keith's work" -- well then read it and stop infering whatever worship you have of Jensen onto her

"I am not defending her thesis per se" -- bullshit. you continue to make arguments in support of what you THINK is her position. egads. you're definitely arguing plenty more than that she has a right to spout whatever ignorant shit she wants without getting pied.


Genocide accusation:

as for whomever finally decided to follow that link from 3 days ago about genocide, well then you and I certainly read that differently. I clearly see her wanting the grid disabled by saboteurs without warning or consent for the millions it will effect. you with me so far?? she wants to FORCE her prescription onto others. those others will run out of food in 13 days she claims. then what, civil disorder, starvation, PEOPLE WILL DIE (and that's not even counting those with disabilities or illnesses that will be the very first to perish). in my mind, that's genocide. I think it's completely disingenuous to call it anything else. you can't honestly argue that the deaths are simply incidental and not intentional, especially when she continues to harp about overpopulation needing a drastic solution for the survival of this planet. maybe you're so caught up in your apocalyptic fantasies that you too think such a sudden non-democratic shutdown of the grid would be cool or necessary or whatever and you like to think that would make the culprits heros rather than mass murderers. I think it's misanthropic to the extreme. I think it incredibly disturbing. people might heed her words and do it. she justifies militant action such as property destruction. she justifies cutting the power grid leading to millions of deaths. and all the crybabies on here fret about couple of pies. fucking hypocrites, all of you
by --
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:12 PM
well - the thing is, if you look at many of the details, these folks were leaving obvious signs, almost deliberately, about who they are. There isn't only the chance that they could have been stopped by someone standing near the exit door, or that their many friends in the audience could have chatted about it, but they also appear to be leaving trademark signals online.
I hope it doesn't escalate to the point where their house could get raided, and every associate gets their name given to police
by your same argument, being a city dweller PERIOD is unsustainable, so why focus so much on vegans like it's our fault alone. remember, we make up less than 5% of the population and our diet consumes significantly less resources than the 95+% of city dwellers who eat meat

you hate the cities as evil? fine, then go live in the woods or the magical prairies where the buffalo roam free. hunt and gather all your food. that's where it's all right? all forms of civilization suck and so forth

but don't try to pull some Pol Pot shit on me and issue a death warrant for everyone who lives in the city. don't get off on your Jensen dungeons and dragons fantasies about saboteurs cutting the power grid and killing millions. while Keith and Jensen are just kicking back getting paid for writing such misanthropic garbage, someone might actually go out and do it. if that happens, all those who die through direct human action will be on your hands too as an apologist for these phonies
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:15 PM
I think the following quote nicely sums up the racist shit you are peddling here:

"all of your infatuation with indigenous peoples sounds like stupid hippy shit to me. "

It is so obvious that you are a white male and middle class. I don't think there is a better example of racist vegan fundamentalism than that sentence right there. Only a privileged white person would say something as ignorant as that.

I think you have pretty much single handedly brought this discussion to end for most people who live outside of the Vegan Church of white middle class privilege bathed in vegan racism.
white male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle classwhite male and middle class

and what race are you?

my point, since you can't seem to get it, is NOT that indigenous people should be vegan, NOT that indigenous peoples do not have serious concerns that matter

it's that YOU are NOT an indigenous person, so STOP trying to PRETEND you are like those dumbass hippies that all ran out and bought fringe leather jackets. your phoniness is disgusting and I see right through it

maybe in your little fantasy world one day there will be no cities and you'll be hunting buffalo somewhere on a prarie, but GET FUCKING REAL, it ain't gonna happen, especially not for you, WHITE MAN
by Mike Desert
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:42 PM
So, is anyone going to see the Runaways movie? I hope Crispin Glover plays Kim Fowley.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 12:58 PM
Read your comment again. You sound frustrated and it looks like your shitting all over the keyboard my friend. Certainly, your ideas are losing structure and calm, which is a pretty good indication that your racist and privileged brain is incapable of understanding 500 years of imperialist violence against indigenous populations.

Working in solidarity with indigenous cultures is a political necessity and something anyone who understands the history of our genocide against Native Americans would understand. The fact that you don't get it is a very clear indication of your sophomoric political (white) consciousness: precisely why you would think that it's just stupid "hippy shit".

I look forward to a sustainable world, not relying on imperialist violence for the importation of our resources. I look forward to sustainable bioregions. If it means using oil to transport veggies a 1000 miles, I want no part of it. That is the ultimate foolishness in vegan fundamentalism. No concept of your dependency on a death culture.

You guys really don't understand Jensen's arguments. This culture will, and is, destroying this planet and something has to be done to stop it. I prefer, and I know they do, that we do it with the least amount of violence and loss of life. It's not about conducting genocide. It's about stopping a system that is conducting ECOCIDE, killing off millions of species including ourselves (this is the SIXTH EXTINCTION EVENT we are in). If the plankton go, we go. If the big fish go, we go (90% are gone). If the fresh water goes, we go. If we keep burning oil, we will go.

If you read anything I wrote with care, you would know I support sustainable organic agriculture a la:

http://www.counterpunch.org/gray03102010.html

I really hope we can develop a compromise towards sustainable cities. It remains to be seen.
by brandon47
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:04 PM
Vegans are the some of the biggest hypocrites out there.

First of all, veganism is not actually animal product free, as they claim. Vegans clearly do not understand the importance of animals in plant agriculture. There would be almost no food for them to eat without bee pollination. Bees are placed in hive boxes next massive fields where they are "enslaved" by the bee keepers, work all day for no pay, and then have their honey raided and sold. Bee slavery contributes to vegan food products whether they like it or not.

In addition, much of the fertilizer used in plant agriculture, especially the preferred organic agriculture, is in the form of manure. Last time I checked, manure was still animal dung, and therefore an animal product.

Give it up, vegans. Animals like you are omnivores...
by DUDE
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:12 PM
DUDE

you're white. I'm white. get over it

stop trying to pretend like your the only white guy who gets it

what are you like kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves?

or are you more like that blue guy in Avatar that leads the natives to salvation because they couldn't do it for themselves?

drop the holier than thou shtick. you're white, you live in a city. you use computers and electricity and you probably watch TV at least once in a while. I'd guess that you even poop. for sure, you are not of the First Nations nor will you ever be

and yes, a lot of hippies who *thought* they were down with native peoples were full of shit phonies. you remind me a lot of that, being the first in the room to call other people white when you are white yourself, wrapping yourself in some romantic dream about "the way it was" even though it will never ever be like that again. it's really bizarre how detached from reality you are about those of European descent and native peoples, about humans 10,000 years ago and humans in the next century. like it or not, Jensen and Keith are misanthropes who crave for millions if not billions to die, and soon, or at least that's their shtick to sell books printed on paper transported by oil paid for with dollars while they laugh all the way to the bank
by Christopher D
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:14 PM
Is Crispin in the movie? I can't imagine Kristen Stewart playing Joan Jett. Isn't she in Twilight?
by Smallpox, endangered species cuz of civ
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:18 PM
Also, humans are animals, therefore their labor is an animal product, and so anything produced by the labor of another is not vegan.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:29 PM
I am of mixed race actually. I don't consider myself "white". Nonetheless, it's a consciousness issue. There are many white bothers and sisters that work on indigenous issues, on issues of solidarity with our latin american bothers and sisters. What's clear in your little vegan side shows, is that you have no appreciation for intricacies of the arguments being presented to you. You live in a black and white world, with black and white ideas about vegan lifestyle issues. It's totally fucking pathetic.

What is telling is that you don't ever respond to the details of my arguments. You deal in obfuscation, misdirection, and ad-hominem attacks.

As I have repeatedly said above, I don't like what I have heard of Keith's style in argument, but I support her right to argue them. Some of her ideas that are really trying to represent Jensen's ideas, are correct. Sounds like some of her research is seriously flawed. But since I am an adult, I don't try to shut her down when she tries to speak. That's for little white middle class boys and girls who are still developing their identities.

I hope that someone identifies the little fascist cowards who pied Keith. They deserve some "just fists."
by Bev Jo
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:30 PM
I haven't been part of arguing on a list like this before and am amazed at what looks like obvious arrogant class-privileged stupidity (primarily from the men) that political activists I knew 40 years recognized as clearly wrong. There is such a class and cultural difference that I feel from many who are writing in. I do appreciate what Jeff Ott and others wrote, but have no idea if any of those who used their full names are known or not.

In the movement I've been part of, we had the sense to know that degrees do not mean someone knows more than someone who did their own research. Those who are enmeshed in academia are often idiots. Lierre's work is based on many things and is clearly common sense. She should get a Phd first before she's taken seriously? Our country is not going to have the most brilliant minds getting degrees because it's become almost impossible for someone who is poverty class or working class to get degrees. It takes just too much money. There are some exceptions, but the class-privileged are often not very bright -- not genetically, but because of how they choose to think or not think, feel or not feel, and many are disconnected from their emotions.

A thread running through the insults is based on the idea that those of us who agree with Lierre are her "followers." It's ignored that I said I had these politics over 20 years earlier, as did many of my friends. This seems to be a case of projection.
Another example is the person who insulted me because they don't believe plants feel, as if that's a stupid idea. Lierre goes into detail about how plants do feel and make decisions. "The Secret Life of Plants" describes this, for those who need experiments to have anything proved to them. As I said, women and slaves (male and female) and indigenous people have been said to have no feelings so those who wanted to own and exterminate them would not feel guilty. Just because you are so deliberately unaware as to not know what is obvious about how every living being feels does not mean it's not true. You need experiments on animals to show whether they have body parts (nerve endings) to believe they feel? How can this be part of your vegan politics? How can you be so nature-hating as to think it's a stupid idea that plants feel? Do you know that many plants activate chemicals in their bodies that are toxic to animals when animals begin to eat them?

It's not a question of taste for me, being an omnivore -- it's about health and recogizing I am an animal species who needs meat to be healthy. After observing a large community over 40 years, I have seen the health of vegans and vegetarians deteriorate until I don't know of any who hasn't returned to being an omnivore or isn't in bad shape. Lierre is not the only one with serious spinal problems. But you expect me to believe you who say this can't be true, even though the evidence is plain to see? So who is wanting followers who don't think?

This IS like a cult, with religious-like obedience or you are seriously punished with pain and humiliation and ostracism. Lierre had the courage to change and admit it and to try to make up for it.

Yes, terrorism is involved because some of you would kill her if you could, and do you really think we don't know that you would also use rape as a way to terrorize as well? When do men not use that, who are bullies and attack women? Using "pies" is supposed to be cute. When I see the video, she is hit hard and with pepper smashed into her eyes. The attackers didn't know the pressure of the blows wouldn't cause permanent damage to someone they know is in constant pain. They probably hoped to further disable her. They certainly stopped her from being able to speak, which is right wing tactics.

But it's a joke to you -- just as rape is, unless, of course, the threat is to you personally.

So, still no response to the comment that many vegans/anarchists believe rapists shouldn't be in prison. Doesn't that say something that explains everything about you? No wonder this movement always repulsed me. No amount of professing care and concern for animals could disguise the fascistic brutality behind it.

I have a kind vegan friend who agrees because of what she's witnessed with bullying and humiliation, which isolates her from other vegans.

Almost nothing else I said has been answered, and almost nothing anyone else said that was true has been answered. Instead, there are just insults and arrogance, reeking of privilege. As I wrote last night, it's a game for the privileged and you're probably find another way to bully and harass people in the future whey you decide to change your eating and politics. In my experience with past arrogant, cruel bullies, you will return to get the full privilege you grew up with.
by Run runaway
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:32 PM
no, I don't think Crispin is in it, but he'd be perfect for Kim Fowley. They got Michael Shannon, who kinda looks like him a bit, but we'll see how he does...
by Valerie Solanas
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:42 PM
Remember kids, if you disagree with Jo, it must be because you're privileged, and probably white and middle-class. Usually cisgendered is added into the smear mix, but since Jo here is transphobic, i doubt she'll be using that one.
by Steve
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 1:55 PM
Wow, every topic and every incendiary comment under the sun has been covered.

How about we all DO something we can all agree on for the planet?

How about we all get off the internet and do the work of planting a tree? Get something to show for our time and energy?
by Steve
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:00 PM
Some of us might be poor, now.

Thinking in terms of being "privileged" means that at least you came from bourgeois background to get enough education to think like that.

I've met poor and "unprivileged" people......they just don't think like that.

They are too busy working and trying to survive.
by soooo superior you are
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:00 PM
and it's really rich that you talk about black and white

I've been trying to paint a picture of the greys and complexities we face and you come off with the "my way or the highway" Jensen is God approach.

no, Jensen is not god. not even close. and talk about skirting arguments. you completely ignore that Jensen and his new sidekick Keith are both misanthropes that directly call for genocide about as directly as they can without actually saying it. that's somehow irrelevant to you even though it's completely central to their supposed "solutions"

it doesn't bother you in the slightest that Keith calls for saboteurs to kill millions but a pie in her face is evil incarnate. that doesn't set off your hypocrisy meter in the least?

straight up: do you or don't you support her call for people to sabotage the electrical grid without the consent of those effected?

and you do wear the straw men arguments really thin. over and over here you presume to know the class of those who did the pieing. you presume that they do nothing of value unrelated to veganism -- they could be social workers for all you know, volunteer with cop watch or soup kitchens or community farms. you have no idea that they are "single issue" vegans yet you persist with that line of attack again and again. of all the vegetarian/vegans I've ever met, I'd say only a tiny tiny subset could be called anything close to that, if even. most are involved in many issues, from anti-capitalism to environmentalism, to social justice, to police brutality, to, wait for it, indigenous issues. and I have NEVER met what I would call a "lifestyle vegan" oblivious to social and environmental issues

just because someone doesn't think like you and run out to buy every Jensen book once it hits amazon doesn't mean that they are wrong

in fact, there is no one single way, no silver bullet. it would literally be impossible to get everyone on the planet to agree on it even if there were one. if you think you have the slightest hope of getting everyone to sign on with the "Jensen Plan" TM you are deluded. I don't think even Jensen is an honest, true-hearted supporter of the plan. it's mostly a lot of bloviating about his own self-righteousness and how everyone else is just ruining things
by Notorious V.J.S.
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:04 PM
Valerie Solanas never would've bought this "cisgendered" bullshit. She wanted all men to die, including ones in dresses.
by don't matter
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:06 PM
it doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this discussion what you *consider* yourself

if you look white, you have white privilege in this society

if you have white privilege, it's ridiculous for you to run around calling everyone you disagree with in this thread white
by huh
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:15 PM
so they deserve fists, because you are so certain of your righteousness about this

but they were wrong for using pies because of their righteousness about things

why not a pieing back? or do you believe the punishment meted out by people like you who are always right should be 10 or 20 times worse than the "crime" you are punishing?

so, if they had used fists and really beaten and bruised her, would you support chopping off their hands or some other similar measure?

it's really kind of funny, in a disturbing way, how viscerally you object to the pie people acting out their subjective and relative sense of justice while you see no contradiction in your repeated calls for physical violence against the pie people for your subjective sense of justice
by okay?
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:49 PM
I agree with it, but I have to say I'm surprised that was just published because personally I'm like 20 steps beyond that. And I presume you are as well. From my perspective that could have been written 10 or 20 years ago, except for mention of newer study.

Yes, of course, organics. I don't know a sensible person who would argue with that. The move is happening already, has been, as the author indicated.

But powerful forces are aligned against it, just like the petrochemical companies against truly green and sustainable production and energy methods.

Doesn't mean stop fighting tho
by ClownyClownClown
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:50 PM
Crispin Glover wasn't in that Valerie Solanas movie, but he made a good Andy Warhol in the Doors flick. They should have used him again.
by TheGift
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 2:52 PM
well, I guess if I had to hang out with Lou Reed I'd sooner than later want all men to die too. Mo Tucker is a bad ass though.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 3:03 PM
Jerry Vlasak essentially issued a death threat against Keith. So yeah, pretty much, I am calling for self-defense against you fucking wingnuts that supported this attack.

And if self-defense means fists then so be it. I am not a pacifist, and I support using physical self defense against vegan nutters that issue death threats against women that have opinions different from the Vegan Church and attack them from behind.

I am a vegetarian because I oppose factory farming, but I am a revolutionary first and foremost. I have no problem defending Keith against you cowards. Indeed, all serious class struggle anarchists and earth defenders should defend her at all her talks against the likes of Jerry Vlasak et al.

(and note how none of you address the core issues I raised in regards to Jensen's arguments, and your dependence on a death culture that delivers your nice fresh veggies to your nice fresh groceries, where nice people sell you clean foods, using unsustainable fuels and resources brought to you by Empire Inc.)

I am as much a part of the problem, but I am willing to admit we are fucked.
by Rubin Farr
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 3:24 PM
Have you seen Crispin's "What is It?" Truly disturbing. I hope he keeps making movies though. That one needs to come out on DVD, since the only way you can see it is at one of his showings for $25.
by thank you
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 3:27 PM
nice to hear something besides YOU, YOU, YOU in the most stereotypical terms

Jerry talks a lot of smack, so chill on that. You've talked about actual physical violence several times here where as he just said she deserved the pieing and others like her do too. So both of you like bravado.

I'm not sure if it's self-defense to go after someone for pieing with fists. Now if someone had the courage of gumption to stand up at the time, maybe, but a week later, I dunno. That's more like vengeance than self-defense.

One thing you miss in your blind defense of Keith is that it's not just a matter of her having a different opinion then the VEGAN CHURCH (as opposed to the ANTI-CIV CHURCH). Lots of people disagree with vegans all the time. Damn, don't you realize that vegans get shit about their diet almost every day?!? The difference is that she out and out directly insults and belittles vegans in the most nasty, gratuitous, and logically inaccurate ways. And she does it from INSIDE the movement with no larger concern for unity or shared ideals. It's a bitter attack on her former self that she projects outward onto every vegetarian alive today, much like you keep smearing the VEGAN CHURCH.

Still, though, you refuse to condemn, much less even admit, that Keith has clearly called for direct action genocide, let the chips fall where they may.

I have directly addressed Jensen's anti-civ, but maybe not to your liking. I did it facetiously because I don't think humans will ever revert to a pre-agricultural society that hunts and gathers. I think talk like that is just silly and obviously not something that could happen any time in the near future. And that gets back to Keith's genocidal tendencies -- she supports trying to force people back into that regardless of how many people die in the transition. I personally think that's monstrous, a million times worst than a pieing. It doesn't seem to bother you but a pie or two just about makes your head explode.

I think if there is any need for self-defense, its against people like Keith who thinks its okay to kill me or my sick or disabled relatives and friends and millions like us for her fantasies about the nobility of hunting and gathering. Let me tell you what, if she or anyone who takes her seriously ever tries to disable a power grid without the consent of the people (rich, poor, black, white, brown, whomever) and I'm around, I'll have no problem taking those self-righteous mass murderers permanently out of the picture to prevent the deaths of millions. That's my bravado talk.
by so tired of crap
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 3:55 PM
Joan Jett once propositioned two of my friends at the same time. Too bad they were such lame asses they didn't take her up on it; I would have loved to hear that story! Maybe we'll get some vegans with cupcakes together for the screening...
by Mike Desert
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 4:08 PM
Two friends at once? What a rock star! I'm sure the movie will be pretty bad, but I'm still getting more and more excited about it. I'm down for a S.F. vegans Runaways meet up! or hell, let's invite everyone -it can be a meat up too.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 4:24 PM
>>Jerry talks a lot of smack, so chill on that. You've talked about actual physical violence several times here where as he just said she deserved the pieing and others like her do too.

I talked about self-defense, and I think a little justice is in order yes. And Jerry didn't just say she deserved it, he issued what I would construe as a death threat in thinly veiled terms, especially in the context of other death threats coming out of Jerry's mouth:

-------------------
The time for polite discussion with the oppressors is over, or as some are now putting it, "Negotiation is Over".
Message to Keith and others who promote oppression, repression and murder of the innocent, and destruction of the planet, however misinformedly well-intentioned- "No more free ride!"
-------------------

And Peter Young called her a "death merchant" responsible for the "deaths of billions". I don't know about you, but that is very borderline pro-life right wing shit. I think the ALF wants to kill researchers, so it's not a far leap to say these people are capable of that. Do you disagree?

>>Now if someone had the courage of gumption to stand up at the time, maybe, but a week later, I dunno. That's more like vengeance than self-defense.

As I already described, it happened in 5 seconds or less, and they were gone. The shock happened quickly before anyone realized what happened. There was no hope for immediate action to catch them

>>And she does it from INSIDE the movement with no larger concern for unity or shared ideals. It's a bitter attack on her former self that she projects outward onto every vegetarian alive today, much like you keep smearing the VEGAN CHURCH.

That may very well be true. I've said over and over again that her prose is not well constructed, and her research seems questionable in some areas. The problem is.. is confusing her work with Jensen's which is far far better, at least on his analysis (which she clearly bites). He is not misanthropic at all. He is not genocidal at all. He argues the culture is genocidal whether we like to admit it or not. So, he challenges, what are we going to do about it before it kills millions of species? That is the issue.

>>Still, though, you refuse to condemn, much less even admit, that Keith has clearly called for direct action genocide, let the chips fall where they may.

Again, what I just said above.

>>I did it facetiously because I don't think humans will ever revert to a pre-agricultural society that hunts and gathers.

Certainly not by choice. But it may very well go that way if we destroy the planet. More directly, if we allow capitalism to destroy the planet and consume the rest of the resources.

>>I think if there is any need for self-defense, its against people like Keith who thinks its okay to kill me or my sick or disabled relatives and friends and millions like us for her fantasies about the nobility of hunting and gathering. Let me tell you what, if she or anyone who takes her seriously ever tries to disable a power grid without the consent of the people (rich, poor, black, white, brown, whomever) and I'm around, I'll have no problem taking those self-righteous mass murderers permanently out of the picture to prevent the deaths of millions. That's my bravado talk.

Really? You are misconstruing the arguments I think, at least the way I have read Jensen (have you read his work carefully?). No one is saying that people should kill people, especially sick and disabled people. Shit, capitalism already does that by it's pollution, chemicals, and food systems. The argument goes that if the system which is killing the planet continues unstopped, it will kill all of us including your relatives and mine, and probably take millions of species with it. I think we are seeing that daily. Now if you choose to defend this system until your last dying breath as it kills off the planet and the biosphere, go for it.

Tactically, I think it's stupid to take out the power grid, and as I have said already, it's not going to happen either by Keith or Jensen judging from the way the ELF and ALF are infiltrated, and the way they rat each other out all the time. So lets get realistic. I think its a brain dead idea, and it really isn't going to happen. But the argument that the system is killing the planet is real, and we should deal with it as though it is a serious threat to our survival and millions of other species, not just animals we might consume.
by ex-vegan
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 4:50 PM
Lierre is neither misanthropic nor genocidal, and her prose is actually quite beautiful. Read the book and see for yourself.
by Barry Bliss
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:09 PM
"...or do you really think this pieing is akin to airplanes flying into buildings or shooting up airports or improvised explosive devices?"

I am not attempting to be shocking nor am I attempting to exaggerate.
I am thinking of the term terrorism as anything where the person is attempting to terrorize another.

This pieing is much less harmful to far less people than an airplane being flown into a building and killing 1000 people.
Please do not waste time pretending I am one of the exaggerators.

I realize, even more so now, that the term terrorism is very linked to a narrow set of circumstances by many people.
I was simply thinking of the term as--to terrorize, or attempt to cretae terror in the victim.

i can drop the term.
How about this.
The act against Lierre was violent and uncalled for in my eyes and I disaprove of it.
If you approve of it that is your business.
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:19 PM
Yeah, I should have said, "her prose may not be well constructed" since I haven't read that much of it. Some of the quotes I read sounded a little off to me, but that's ok. I am less interested in the tone than in the arguments. Since I am aware that Keith agrees with much of Jensen's work, I really intended to defend his ideas and try to, perhaps wrongly, contextualize her arguments about agriculture within Jensen's analysis.

But I do plan on reading the book.
by Barry Bliss
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:19 PM
Derrick says we need all the different kinds of people for this thing to work.
He accepts that he has one role to, play, but unlike some others, he acknowledges we need it all--and he respects others who go about things in different ways.
I was lucky enough to exchange emails with Derrick once and I told him there were some things I disagreed with.
He was totally respectful and was even glad that I was not just a copier of himself.
Lets face it, in the anti-civ community, in the vegan community, and everywhere else, there are simply not many mature people.
Courage and maturity go hand in hand.
by Steve
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:29 PM
"Lierre is neither misanthropic nor genocidal, and her prose is actually quite beautiful."

Well, that clears it all up.
by now!
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:32 PM
You can share your support for Lierre Keith at The Vegetarian Myth Facebook page or by sending her an e-mail at lierrekeith [at] yahoo.com. Thank her for all of her contributions to spreading the message and that you support her in her continued efforts. If the vegans want to scorn her for not choosing veganism, then we should praise her for standing up as a proud omnivore.
by hard to swallow
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:43 PM
Vegan wars
Uttarika Kumaran / DNA
Saturday, February 20, 2010 2:16 IST


In May last year, Lierre Keith’s controversial book The Vegetarian Myth was launched as a powerful invective against vegetarians and vegans alike. Keith, who attributes her rather extreme health problems to a lack of meat during her years as a vegetarian, seems to take an all too personal pleasure in condemning those who rely purely on plant products. She blames agriculture for destroying entire ecosystems, ravaging most of the American prairie, and even causing the disappearance of top soil, a looming environmental threat. And if that wasn’t enough, she adds “slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease” to the list of historical outcomes of our overdependence on mass cultivation.

Veganism is often purported to be as good for the soul as it is for the body. If that is the case, this new controversy is something vegans will find hard to swallow.
by Ellie
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 5:55 PM
Wow...

I'd say those pathetic excuses for human-beings were giving Vegans a bad name, but this isn't the first time Vegan fanatics have acted like complete imbeciles. People like that should be sedated and locked in cages instead of those conventionally raised animals because they are incapable of treating humans with the same respect they're preaching towards animals.

It's one thing to disagree, it's another to be complete idiots.

God, I haven't met extreme Christians who act like this. Is being a Vegan a cult, a religion or a lifestyle choice? (key word 'choice).

I'm absolutely disgusted that so many of you didn't find anything wrong with what happened. I'm glad I'm no longer a Vegan because I'd be ashamed to associate myself with people like you.
by friends to the end
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 6:03 PM
We have weapons, from protests and lawsuits to the time-honored American tradition of civil disobedience to the serious tactics that resistance movements have always used. Whatever weapons you choose, use them wisely and use them well, but use them.

Derrick Jensen
Lierre Keith
by okay then
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 6:06 PM
"I'd be ashamed to associate myself with people like you"

then I suppose you PROUDLY associate with every last omnivore?? or do you get to pick and choose who you are associated with?
by Steve
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 6:53 PM
So I have been watching the video of the pie throwing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPayTWlAQ0k

The last pie thrower out is thin, seems to hold their weight in a feminine manner. I think the last pie thrower might have been a chick, FWIW
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/03/15/vegan-nut-jobs-attack-lierre-keith/

This is a brilliant response to this half-assedly written "article" you've got here (seriously, eat an egg or something before even considering making a coherent argument).

The ironic part is that that single, repulsive act proved EVERYTHING Keith was saying. She rest her case, soybrains, and you've done all the work for her!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woFD8pp3rRU&feature=player_embedded
by OutragedCitizen
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:33 PM
I am totally outraged by the things that omnivores have been doing in the past 10 years! Rape! murder! incest! genocide! And you say vegans are a cult!? No one here has talked about the violent outbursts occurring in bars all over America by omnivores. Too MUCH B-12 maybe? I am SO glad I am not part of your meat eating social cult anymore!

Come on people, get a grip. If you think the pie thing was awful, blame the three kids, not the vegan community. Some of the people on here are saying things far meaner than a pie stunt.

Go surfing, take a walk in the park or something. I'm not even going to let LK's poorly researched doom and gloom book get me down!
by GerberBaby
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKTsWjbjQ8E&feature=player_embedded#at=40

"It's an ethical thing. I don't think human beings should be treated this way."
I keep hearing that this book, which I've yet to read, but certainly will now, is anti-agriculture. The comments here make it seem like the book, the author, and the supporters of both are actually anti-vegan. Why is that? Why all the hate for vegans? I get that you're upset about her getting pied, but aren't we all capable of condemning that act, perpetrated by three individuals, without having to make sweeping generalizations about ALL vegans? Seriously, it seems like you folks literally HATE vegans. Yet you defend your attitudes by saying vegans are mean, stupid, soybrained, privileged, single-issue, fundamentalist, xtians, with no regard for the animals, the environment, indigenous cultures, discourse, intelligent thought or virtually anything besides themselves. Frankly, that seems a little like overkill to me. Three people chose to use a pie to express their distaste for Ms. Keith. Those three have yet to come forward and identify themselves as vegans or men. From the comments above it seems a couple different groups might be unhappy with the author yet everyone's rush to box them up as unsavory vegans, makes it seem like an organized event; organized by folks looking for an opportunity to spew their anti-vegan venom. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying that the rush to label them vegan and then the considerable time and effort spent denouncing all vegans as evil is suspicious and certainly doesn't make anyone in the pro-Lierre camp look less mean or angry than they are accusing vegans of being.

One last note, I just caught Lierre on the evening news talking about this issue. She said that vegans are angry because they lack tryptophan in their diets and tryptophan releases serotonin. This dietary lack was news to me so I looked up trytophan on wikipedia. Eleven of the eighteen "particularly plentiful" foods listed are vegan. In fact, the chart listed shows that soybeans contain more than twice the amount of tryptophan as turkey. If this trytophan argument is what you are all basing your "vegans are so angry" statements on, you might want to reconsider, since anyone with access to Wikipedia will quickly find you are not in possession of the facts. Additionally, if Ms. Keith was given the opportunity to speak on the evening news and she chose to use those precious moments to put forth fallacious information in defense of herself, and as critique of vegans, I'd question why anyone here is bothering to listen to her.
by hahaha
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:47 PM
what a great source to cite.
by yep
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:51 PM
Three vegans at the San Francisco Anarchist Book Fair, the absolute center of the international discourse on diet, on anything really, have really let the cat out of the bag as far as what this whole vegan thing is about. I guess I have to accept that since the hive mind doesn't really think it's appropriate to keep cats in bags anyway.
by lierre keef
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:52 PM
Take a look at Lierre's footnotes, smart guy.
by Ironic
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:57 PM
Funny, it was a good enough source for Lierre's book....
by question
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:58 PM
I'd like to ask Lierre about depression and anger in omnimores. Is that a myth? Did vegans invent anger, fighting, wars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Dietary_sources

She knows better, so all I can think is she's a total liar looking to smear vegans, her former self, any way she can.

And then when anyone complains, she plays the victim. Oooo, poor me, I've only ever been honest and nice myself.
by Omnivore
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:59 PM
Her amazon.com ranking has gone from 4500 to 486 in the past few days. Think I'll buy a few more copies to celebrate!
by 000
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:03 PM
"One last note, I just caught Lierre on the evening news talking about this issue. She said that vegans are angry because they lack tryptophan in their diets and tryptophan releases serotonin. This dietary lack was news to me so I looked up trytophan on wikipedia. Eleven of the eighteen "particularly plentiful" foods listed are vegan. In fact, the chart listed shows that soybeans contain more than twice the amount of tryptophan as turkey. If this trytophan argument is what you are all basing your "vegans are so angry" statements on, you might want to reconsider, since anyone with access to Wikipedia will quickly find you are not in possession of the facts. Additionally, if Ms. Keith was given the opportunity to speak on the evening news and she chose to use those precious moments to put forth fallacious information in defense of herself, and as critique of vegans, I'd question why anyone here is bothering to listen to her."


I agree. Yeah, I eat spirulina everyday and it has the second highest concentration.

What station was this? Is there a URL?


They think she's an ally because she hates vegetarians.

But if they actually read the book, they'll find out that she eagerly awaits the end of civilization and hopes that most of them die, the sooner the better.

If they read her interviews online, they'll learn that she thinks saboteurs should bring it all on themselves.

I'll bet some of them will then want to pie her themselves.
by haters get the hypocrisy
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:28 PM
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/03/17/ex-vegan-hit-with-pie-says-others-should-be-attacked-instead/

This is as much the face of animal rights as pretty models posing nude to protest fur. Rather than being distinct, I am convinced that the movement is one organism, like an octopus, with PETA’s edginess one arm, ALF’s violence another arm, and HSUS’s lawsuits and legitimate political advocacy, a third arm, etc.. That point aside, Keith’s nihilism is so thick that even after becoming a victim, she doesn’t have it in her to condemn lawless tactics against people based on differences of opinion. She just wants these tactics directed at someone else. Typical.
by in her own words
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:37 PM
Keith: "the silver lining in the cayenne cloud is that my book went from 4500 on amazon to 1503 yesterday."
by good grief
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:52 PM
This is only further proof of what she was saying. The sickness has been exposed further.
by Halo
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 8:59 PM
You know, three (juvenile) people do not represent an entire (international) group. My eating habits do not make me magically responsible for someone else's lack of judgement. Grow up.
by Tara
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:04 PM
How can you applaud assault. I thought veg*ns cared about life, and respected others, not just animals. Am I wrong? This pie was laced with cayenne pepper, and that is more than a symbolic protest, that is vicious and cruel. No one deserves to be injured because they believe differently than others and share their ideas with the world. This is not an attack, but a plea for an explanation of how you can condone and encourage this behavior. I am losing faith in veganism over this. :(
by John Zerzan & Kathan Z
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:26 PM
Both John Zerzan and Lierre Keith spoke at the Anarchist book fair on the weekend of 3.12.2010. Zerzan is best described as a primitivist, while Keith and one of her publishers, Derrick Jensen, hold a similar but more moderate perspective that is sometimes called anticiv, which is a form of primitivism. The core concept is that once societies such as mesopotamians, chinese, and aztecs adopted entirely based on the grains wheat, rice and corn, then the legal system of property rights, monarchy/slavery, and overpopulation is inevitable. Zerzan has previously criticized Jensen on various counts, mostly for not making pure and consistent enough personal choices in life.

Hopefully not drumming up the soap opera too much here: in Zerzan's first radio show out of Eugene after the book fair, Zerzan criticizes Lierre Keith for both bringing a security assistant to her evening book talk, and for filing a police report after the first talk. Along with his collaborator Kevin, he questions whether there was cayenne pepper in the pie, and they also make a point of criticizing the Portland based 'rewilding' enthusiast Urban Scout or Peter Bower.
by Chris
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 9:57 PM
Tara, there are plenty of vegans on this thread that have not condoned the pieing, and plenty who have outright condemned it. Who are you speaking to? Why are you choosing to act like the majority of this discussion has been about condoning the pieing when it hasn't?
by thetoesknows
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 10:02 PM
somebody knows who did this. violence against women is NOT okay.
by Grrrl
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 10:36 PM
"Many of those who might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise."

Are you serious? What kind of lame analysis of power and structure are you working from?
by Aghast
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 10:37 PM

I can't believe the hatred toward a group of our society based on their diet on here. "hot damn, she's getting paid and loving it. hating vegans rules!!"? Why? People are accusing vegans of being hostile, but even more comments on here seem to stem from people being angry of the vegetarian diet.

"somebody knows who did this. violence against women is NOT okay."

From the video, I suspect a couple were female and all look very young. No one said violence against women was OK, and even if a few vegans did, I would label the vegan community and "women haters" for God's sake.
by Sorry
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 10:38 PM
That last line read wrong, but you know what I meant.
by Come on!
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 10:50 PM
Is violence against authors okay? Is violence against animals okay? Is attacking an entire group of people in a book okay?

It was a pie and it wasn't even a baked pie with some sort of heavy apple, or berry, or meat mass for filling. For gawd's sake only one pie landed anywhere near her face, on top of her head, and she bent over before most of it dripped into her face.

I'm a woman and I find all this violence against women stuff annoying and tired by now. She didn't write about women. She wasn't speaking about women. People did not pie her because she is a woman. Nobody tried to shut down her "female" voice. Nobody said 'Down with Women!' as they tossed a pie in her direction.

She chose to write something controversial and name it something controversial. She wanted controversy. She is a big girl/woman. Stop hiding behind her vagina and boobs in her defense. People tossed pies either because they were working for her and attempting to further her controversial image and her disdain for vegans or because they don't like her message which seems to say the world's problem's are the responsibility of those who care to stand up for the sentient voiceless amongst us. Nobody did this *BECAUSE* she is a woman. Cut it out already!

She's a woman. She's an author. She's a radical feminist who wouldn't otherwise like everyone continually pointing out she is of the fairer sex and should therefore be treated differently than men. I am insulted by this constant reminder. If someone pied me because I wrote a book titled Meat Eaters are Dumbasses, I'd expect some people not to like it or me. I'd expect somebody might do something I didn't like at an event. If I needed to, I'd speak out about it, but I would absolutely not say whatever was done was done because I am a woman or shouldn't have been done because I am a woman.

Besides all this is silly when we are talking about a woman who advocates taking out a power grid which would certainly be some sort of violence against women wouldn't it?

Protest the pieing if you like, but leave her womanhood out of it—it was not attacked at Saturday's event. Protest violence if that's what you think it was, but protest violence against all, not just women. And, of course, if you're against violence, you should be against eating animals. Even if you don't think animals matter, you should be aware of the fact that as a meat eater you require other people to kill and endanger their own physical well-being all day long on your behalf. The violence perpetrated against slaughterhouse workers is outrageous. The statistics about drug and alcohol abuse as well as the prevalence of domestic violence amongst these folks is shocking—the highest turnover rates of any industry! Do you abhor violence or not?
by Sun
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:02 PM
http://www.shazzie.com/life/articles/raw_vegan_children.shtml

However, all the while I was researching this information, I saw huge amounts of misinformation being fed to the raw food community. I also saw children with very damaged teeth, stunted growth and developmental problems.

Worse, the children of some of those who actively promoted raw food had experienced the worst symptoms. Once these children were put on a raw or cooked vegetarian diet, and were given supplements, they caught up. However, these "raw food promoters" never, not once publicly stated what had happened to their children. In fact, when other raw parents were having issues with the development of their children, these very same raw food promoters and coaches told them to keep on doing what they were doing. This caused the raw food community to remain oblivious to the dangers of raising children raw.

It all added up to a cover up in the raw food community spanning years, and my conscience wouldn't let it lie.

These parents clearly love their children. And I can't believe for one second they would wish their traumas on other families, so why didn't they speak up? FEAR. Fear at being judged, fear at being seen as failures, fear at ruining their careers, fear of the small yet vocal hardline fruitarian-types saying they'd got it wrong because they weren't following their dogmatic diet. This has happened with parents who tried to air this issue in the past. They have been ostracised and ridiculed, their claims have been dismissed, and they haven't been listened to. Their experiences certainly haven't been welcomed as something for the raw food community to build upon.

Worse than shunning genuine people with genuine experiences and genuine solutions is the lies that are being spread. For example, one mother experienced severe growth defects in her children on the raw vegan unsupplemented diet and resorted to dairy and meat. She now stands shoulder to shoulder with the other raw vegan dogmatists and writes on raw food forums pretending to be someone else! She says that she has been successful in raising her children raw vegan, yet she clearly hasn't. When questioned on these forums, no-one could produce a child who has been raised 100% raw vegan unsupplemented. In fact, all anyone could do was deflect the question and turn it into a flame and blame war.

Why?

Indoctrination and dogmatism. These people are so tied into a belief system that nothing, not even the visible deteriorating health of their child can bring them out of their hypnotic state.
by To Sun
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:29 PM
What was the point of that? Nobody here is talking about being raw, she is. Nobody here is talking about raising raw children, she is. More importantly, she goes on in the rest of the article (the part you chose to exclude from your post) to talk about how she is raising her child 80% raw and mostly vegan, save for some free-range egg yolks (veggan as she says). How does this pertain to the conversation that was already going on? It doesn't at all.

Here's another quote from her that Lierre and her followers should consider if they really want to help vegans understand what they are saying:
"While I feel physically sick that this still happens, I refuse to judge or condemn them. They need love, just like the rest of us. They need to be made to feel safe and secure so they can be truthful and get the help they need for their children without risk of attack."
How 'bout you folks try a little love and leave the judgment and condemnation behind? If Lierre was truly damaged by her vegan diet and she's discovered some unassailable truth that could spare others from living through her kind of debilitating health ordeal, why wouldn't she reach out in kindness and love? Why's she gotta put forth all the hate? Perhaps it's because meat eaters are the ones who are really lead to anger by all the toxins in their food, not to mention the bad karma that goes with ingesting torture, exploitation, terror, violence, and murder? Or perhaps it's because she's a tool of the meat industry that pays her (through the Weston Price?) to denounce her former diet and anyone living a vegan or vegetarian life. What else could the reason be for being so obnoxious in the delivery of a message you know will be controversial? Why not ease folks into it so they might actually want to hear what you have to say instead of being completely turned off by your offensive message and means of delivery?
by Sun
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 11:58 PM
"While I feel physically sick that this still happens, I refuse to judge or condemn them. They need love, just like the rest of us. They need to be made to feel safe and secure so they can be truthful and get the help they need for their children without risk of attack."

You do realize she is talking about attack from fellow vegans?

Why?

"Indoctrination and dogmatism"

Is this the same indoctrination and dogmatism that caused this whole silly incident? The vegan community has not been served by the dumb antics of these three.
by fish
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:35 AM
Sun - wow, so what you took from that was WHO she directed it to, not what she actually said (about acceptance and love). I think you are dogmatic in your hatred of vegans. Look within, man.

Also, so Lierre thinks her degenerative spinal condition was caused by veganism? Really? This is a disease that only vegans get? No meat eaters get this? It must be very very rare then, because 1% of the population is vegan, and I've met many hundreds of vegans and not one has this spinal condition. In fact, given that only a tiny percentage of vegans supposedly get this, and only vegans get this, it must not even exist in the medical literature... Let's face reality: she enjoyed meat, she wanted to go back to it, she concocted an elaborate defense of a cruel lifestyle in order to try to clear her damaged conscience. May she and all meat eaters come back as a farmed or hunted animal. There's no harmony in what she promotes.

http://www.whyvegan.com
by chocolatechip69
( unmaterialized [at] yahoo.com ) Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 7:21 AM
It was 3 CEO's from 3 of the main CAFO factories. That's why the pie was strategically thrown right at the moment she started to speak against them.

On a serious note, those 3 morons are not worth the oxygen we all share. If you can't logically and intelligently defend you stand, maybe you should think twice about its validity.
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:49 AM
I read some comments in this thread bragging that Keith's book moved from a ranking of 4500 to a ranking of about 500 on Amazon since the incident. The pie washed off. Keith is uninjured. All in all it sounds like a totally beneficial event to Keith.

Maybe the incident was manufactured?
by yeah
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:53 AM
Her melodramatic pleas for pity here sure make it seem that way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woFD8pp3rRU&feature=youtu.be
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:02 AM
Hey Lierre Kieth;

You didn't need to include your opinions about vegetarians, vegans, vegetarianism or veganism in your book to make an argument for an alternative view of the relationships between the environment, agriculture, sustainability etc.

Given that your opinions about veg*ns were negative, that you wrote about subjects you don't have training or credentials in, the purpose of your book looks a like an expression of anger against vegans. Possibly because you were emotionally invested in being a vegan and now you are not one.

To be fair, vegans aren't praising your book, but the only people who I see who are praising your book are enthusiasts of meat centered fad diets.

FWIW, I don't think you should been pied. Beyond it being an act that benefited you and that hurt animals/veganism, it was flat out wrong thing to do.

Off topic. I have seen a lot of verbiage about your alleged prejudice against transgendered women. If I was you I would post your opinions about in on a web site someplace to lay the issue to rest.

You are getting painted as an Archie Bunker because of it.

Enjoy the revenues from the increased sales of your book

by me
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:41 AM
What's funny about that YouTube video is that in the legend to the right, this is posted:

"Just when you think it can't get any worse with the radical nature of the vegan diet advocates, along comes something like what I'm about to share with you today that delivers a strong reminder that there is a contingent of people out there who do not want the truth about their way of eating exposed. Its one thing to disagree and have a healthy debate of ideas about diet and nutrition and their relationship to a healthy lifestyle. But acting criminally and causing harm to another human being in the process is just about as disgusting as it comes."

Umm...Lierre Kieth ADVOCATES criminality against those things and people she doesn't agree with, brags about smashing her share of windows, and hopes someone illegally takes out the power grid causing god knows how much human suffering and harm in the process. She's not about education and explanation, she's about illegal direct action...when it's about things and people she doesn't like.
see: http://www.inthewake.org/keith1.html

She's and her supporters are whiny hypocrites of the worst kind. She's all tough talk and bravado, encouraging others to put themselves on the line, but when she gets hit with a pie (a pie!) the world has come to an end. She's pathetic.
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:58 AM
@me

In that respect Keith and her fans are probably ordinary people.

I have noticed in this thread they have ignored the following issues:

- her bigotry against transgendered women
- what you mentioned about her advocacy for destroying the electrical grid and other things
- her total lack of credentials in the subjects she wrote about and how credentialed experts disagree with her

I'm guess these issues have not been addressed because she and her followers do not have a flattering answer.

I'm sure I'm not the only who has noticed the silence.

by exactly
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:06 AM
they have no response. the entire book hinges on her more radical beliefs. to someone who doesn't believe in destroying civilization, eating meat is amongst the worst things a person can do to the environment.

the fact that she wants to destroy civilization makes her lengthy environmental arguments in the book seem entirely disingenuous. she doesn't give two shits if cattle are a large contributor to climate change; to her, climate change would be a blessing that would disrupt civilization and get her one step closer to living her hunter-gatherer fantasy.
by love
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:34 AM
oh my god. In that YouTube video, she says about the pie activists: "They might as well have just kicked a kitten." She really has a victim mentality. Especially when the tough talker advocates taking out the power grid and killing defenseless animals to stuff into hers and others' greedy mouths. That's her whole point: killing defenseless animals. And she gets hit with a pie, walks away, is just fine, and suddenly she's the world's ultimate victim.

Lierre: how do you think the animals feel? If all they got was hit in the face with a pie, they'd be pretty happy. Instead, you want them murdered. I really have no patience for those who whine and cry about their own misfortunes while advocating something even worse to be done to more helpless others. Hey, kill and eat animals if you choose to, but making your own little cottage industry out of trashing those who refuse to shows a defensive, nasty character.

She goes on about how "sickening" that this was done to her, and - boo hoo - how she just wants a compassionate and kind world.

Well, o.k., Lierre. I also find it sickening that you advocate taking out the power grid and killing defenseless animals. That's not compassion. I also find your aggressive attitude toward those who advocate for animals sickening and uncompassionate - you take every chance you get to publicly hate on vegans - talking about how not eating animals causes violence (!), etc. (hey, is Dick Cheney vegan now?). You are not compassionate Lierre (I know you're reading this).
by that's too rich
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:44 AM
She's just a defenseless little fuzzy wuzzy baby kitten who happens to be profiting handsomely from writing an error-ridden book that viciously attacks people who don't eat animals.

Fuck Lierre Keith! No sympathy for lying hypocrites.
by me
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:49 AM
she believes that she is compassionate because she believes that everything (literally, everything) is of equal importance. Nematode = human, earthworm = chicken, plant = animal, etc.

her book really makes a lot of sense from that fucked up viewpoint.
by love
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:54 AM
latest YouTube video, Lierre whining about, 'Why me? I don't have any power. There are other people who are doing damage who they should go after...'

Um...Lierre, you know that vegans make up 1% of the population, right? You think that's a powerful social contingent? I notice you called your book, "The Vegetarian Myth," not "The Factory Farming Myth" or "The Industrial Agriculture Myth." YOU went after a powerless, small group. YOU could be aiming all your ire at industrial farming and the 99% of people who eat factory farmed meat/dairy/eggs. You think the 99% of people eating factory farmed meat/dairy/eggs are causing less environmental harm than vegans? You make your most pointed, most vocal, nastiest criticisms towards vegans. Then you cry like the world's ultimate victim when you get a small reaction. No, a pie on top of your head is not the end of the world, no matter how much you cry about it. You're helping to make a crappy world for those of us who care about animals, you seemed to be focused on making our lives more difficult with your public pronouncements. So yeah, you got a little karma.
by 000
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:12 PM
I think one thing you are missing here in this discussion, at least from my point of view, is that I have stressed that during the presentation at the bookfair, she had a right to speak. I wanted to hear her speak, and I was pretty sure I was going to disagree with her.

It infuriated me that someone basically forced her to shut up, as though myself and others in the room weren't capable of making up our own minds, and having the ability to dissect the bullshit. To me, that is borderline fascist shit. It was tactically stupid and unnecessarily divisive. And it really did create yet another dividing line, the "narcissism of small differences".

Now, to speak to Keith's ideas. Please read what I wrote above. I really do get the impression her book is poorly researched, and her style and smugness bug the hell out of me. I am a vegetarian opposed to factory farming, but support the consumption of animals by those that live off the land, and help to preserve the species they consume.

The core of what you refer to as "genocidal" politics by Keith are all bitten by Derrick Jensen. His books are good and well thought out. He is not a misanthrope or advocating genocide. At the risk of repeating myself again, he argues the culture is not only genocidal but ecocidal and this is supported by the facts on the ground. We aren't just talking about animals humans may eat, but 50,000 species going extinct a year.

To not do something to stop that is, well, genocidal, or ecocidal. Now, as to how to do that? well, i dunno. I do know taking out the power grid is a fucking brain dead stupid idea. But at least they are challenging us with something, acknowledging the destruction. And lets get real here, it's all talk by Keith and Jensen. They are full of shit because they will never do it because Jensen's cop-out line is that "I am only a writer, you don't want me handling explosives". Yeah right. How fucking convenient.

The other issue is that given the FBI infiltration of the ELF type groups, they won't accomplish much. On top of that, they have a culture of ratting each other out when faced with jail time. So lets get real here, Keith, Jensen and Co. are loud mouths, but Jensen's ideas are really fucking good, logically, in that he draws the right conclusions about this death culture needing to be stopped.

Lets look at this with nuance and recognize the hard choices. The more I hear about Keith, the more I see her patterns of extremes, vegan then, meat eater now, the more they create a constant line of excessive mouth talking BS. It's linearly consistent.
by 'lil
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:12 PM
Not everything and everyone is equal in her worldview. She's got no problem putting herself above animals (no matter how you rationalize it, promoting eating meat in a society where people can survive just fine without it is doing that). And she's got no problem putting herself above other humans either. Advocating illegally taking out the power grid? If that's not saying My life and My beliefs are more important than those of the masses, then I don't know what is.
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:35 PM
Look, we all care about the welfare of animals. I for one want to see the end of factory farming. We will do this when we show the population what it really is! It's working. But your antics only help marginalize us as a bunch of freaks who cannot argue in a rational manner. This action was no better than the pepper spray used by the cops against protestors - BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING! Grow up! Start using your brains!

"She said this about us... so we must pepper her." Do you not realize what you have done to your/our cause?
by I heart Peter Young
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:54 PM
Here's the thing though...Jensen and Kieth are into stopping what they see as this "death culture" by whatever means possible, using all tools, even if people are hurt in the process (and people will die in their fantasies).

But I think they're PROMOTING a death culture...against animals. That's not part of her worldview. So, who's worldview, who's view of what constitutes a "death culture," gets to win?

So, as soon as an outlying tactic (pie throwing! OMG!) is used against her, as she's advocating the deaths of animals...suddenly she's all about the law, bringing the police down on the activists, and trying to blend in among all the other meat eaters as just a harmless little fluffy kitten who was viciously attacked by some pie thugs.

As an earlier poster wrote:

"If Keith had been speaking to a crowd of men telling them how important it was to rape women, or if some equally misogynistic skinhead had been invited to speak about having black people strung up, I don't think a rational group of anarchists paying attention would have stood politely by and listened to their hate speech."

But no, she's just advocating killing animals. (And hey, eat animals if you want, but she's made it her life-goal to advocate eating animals and attacking vegans, I guess because she supposedly used to be a crappy one).
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 12:59 PM
@000

The title of your last post was "To Hypocrites suck and Steve", which is a bit unintelligible -- probably due to a typo?

If you mean I am hypocrite or if like the hypocrites( whoever they are and whatever they are hypocritial about) in that I suck.....well.

I do "suck"...ahem.

In the OTHER sense of the word look at me earlier posts in this thread.

I have condemned the pieing. Primarily for hurting veganism and helping Keith's book. I also agree with you that if people want to hear someone's views they should be allowed to do it and these people interfered with that. Sure they can got her book, but they went to the trouble to actually go see her in person.

I don't think it is close minded not to want to read every alternative opinion that is out there.

I know that sounds "sucky" of the OTHER kind, BUT....

I have a demanding job, a full life, I love to read and I have a limited amount of time to do pleasure reading. Keith's book doesn't seem like a fair trade for my time. She writes about subjects in which she has no training and which those who do strongly disagree with her. Additionally, she gratuitously attacks dearly held values of mine.

This Jenson you speak of may be more down to Earth, but my opinion of him is slightly tinged in that he is financially supporting Keith's book. Given the lack of credentials I mentioned on Keith's part that indicates a lack of judgment and a strong bias on his part.

I guess I am trying to say, in a non-snotty way, too many books to read, too little time and these books don't seem worthy enough of that.

I think I agree with everyone here, already, in that I believe current agricultural and other practices are unsustainable. So, what would be the point?

Given all of the facts from all of the credentialed non-veg*n experts I have read for years I don't see meat production, even alternative meat production making people healthier or being able to feed over 7 billion people.

I think that is a pipe dream.

Happy Thursday.


by nope
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 1:05 PM
you've said that here, again and again and again

okay, we get it. it crushed your day when you didn't get to hear her speak. you, you, you.

re: a fucking brain dead stupid idea. But at least they are challenging us with something

hello?!? they are selling books. and I've got better things to do with my limited time on this earth than be challenged by brain dead stupid ideas. that's not some value or benefit for me. you don't have to walk 5 feet for that. why pay for it? and why hold these people up as idols or leaders or whatever?

honestly, I feel you probably have more integrity than keith and jensen combined, and if you could put your own issues away and move on you'd probably be a pretty productive member of this thread her

since you kind of feel defensive about Jensen and that seems to be a big part of your interest in defending Keith, you should check out what John Zerzan had to say about the two of them in audio posted on this site yesterday. sounds like he thinks they are both big phonies and liars. really, why did jensen say keith's book saved his life when he was already an omnivore?
by Konsider
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 2:47 PM
I am vegan and yet I think Lierre Keith makes some valid points. I don't adhere to a vegan faith. I disagree with Lierre Keith, but I don't think that by questioning the viability of a vegetarian based society she therefore speaks for the establishment. I am vegan but I don't agree with suppressing the speech of those I disagree with. Nor does that mean I am against say, Hillary Clinton getting a pie thrown in her face, but I don't put Lierre Keith and Hillary in the same category.
Just to clarify, if Keith called or assisted the cops than fuck her. I don't know the exact circumstances of the exchange; perhaps Keith was put on the spot. But if she had the cops called I in no way support it. Finally, as a vegan and as an anarchist, fuck veganISM and fuck cops.
by Barry Bliss
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 3:14 PM
It's true that some people would die if the power went out.
It's also true that the things we do using power are killing people.

If the power was taken out permanently some people would die.
If the power is not taken out it will probably mean the end of all people, all animals, and all plants--and pretty soon too.

I am not advocating taking out the power grid for good, but I am pulling this stuff out and taking an honest look at it.

We are already killing people. Using this computer I am contributing to the deaths of others in some way.
by Barry Bliss, again.
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 3:19 PM
I have no hidden agenda in asking this--just interested.

What would you have done if you'd been pied that way?

I am mainly asking the people that said she should not have called the cops.

How would you have handled it?
(I have not answered that one for myself yet.)
Maybe we cannot answer it because we are not her and don't know what it is like to be her.

Nevertheless, are there any of you that are sure you'd handle it differently?
How?
by punkin' pie
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 3:49 PM
I'm not an anarchist. I'm a 40-something vegan female (hey, I'm about her age, and I don't have a degenerative spinal disease yet, go figure). And if I were pied, would I have the police called? No. Just no. What would I hope to get out of it? What's the point? I don't really need to see some pie throwers in jail. ESPECIALLY when done as a political action (even if it's against me). Pie throwing has a long tradition. You wipe the crud off your face and go on. But I also don't see myself as a victim kitten, even though I am one of those weak vegans.

And I haven't even gone on the record advocating serious illegal direct action like tearing down the power grid, or saying I've smashed up my share of windows, and so on. That just makes her look foolish and like a big talker, nothing else. She advocates direct action and smashing civilization, and she wants some pie throwers apprehended?
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 6:19 PM
@punkin pie

I'm a 40 something vegan too. I've been a vegetarian for 30 years and a vegan for the last 15. I often get mistaken for someone in my early 30s, I take no medications of any kind, I'm the same size I was in high school and I feel great.

Some people don't know how to think critically. Some people get hypnotized by their emotions or the sounds of their own words.

I don't think it ever occurred to Keith that if her doctors......people who have been to school to learn medical science....couldn't tell her how she got sick that maybe she can't identify the cause either. Maybe she is a one in the million person who can't do a vegan diet. Maybe she caught a virus that trashed her spine. Maybe she has a genetic defect that would have hurt anyway. Maybe she has an unidentified food allergy that cleared up once she switched her diet.

Considering possibilities and accepting you don't know what you don't know isn't satisfying

But that isn't odd considering she has the character to write a book about technical subject in which she has no training and thinks that peppering it with a few references gives credibility.

by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 6:26 PM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
she believes that she is compassionate because she believes that everything (literally, everything) is of equal importance. Nematode = human, earthworm = chicken, plant = animal, etc.

her book really makes a lot of sense from that fucked up viewpoint.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That isn't a fucked up viewpoint. It is the vegan viewpoint. Just because a creature isn't as intelligent as and cannot impose its will on other creatures like a human being doesn't it has a lesser right to life, freedom from suffering etc.

If she really believed that all creatures had the same level of ethical importance she wouldn't end their lives against their will just so she could have lunch.

by sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 7:26 PM
You pepper a woman because you don't like what she is saying. Isn't that what cops do?
by Stop writing
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 8:15 PM
Your previous posts were addressed. And now after hundreds of messages you come back with "You pepper a woman because you don't like what she is saying. Isn't that what cops do?" Are you Lierre? Saying the same dumb thing over, and over, and over even though it's been addressed by many, many, many folks already makes you seem like a weak fluffy kitten who can't think or write. Watch the youtube video. Watch the news clip. There was no pepper and she likely paid folks to do this or got her butter-brained fans to do it, so they could all spend countless hours online furthering their stupid, baseless, mean ideas that vegans are angry because they don't eat tryptophan. This whole thing is so fu*cking stupid, I'm ashamed of myself for coming back to peep this train wreck one more time.

Hey piers, I don't need to de-mask you or beat you down, but I would love it if someone would just settle these items for us:
1. Were you all stupid privileged white males?
2. Was there pepper stuff in the pie?
3. Are you the meanest people on the planet (because you lack tryptophan)?
4. Are you anti woman, anti-disabled, anti-lesbian, or anti-dumb, stupid, ill-informed authors?
5. Are you vegan?
6. Was the pie vegan?
7. Are you friends or fans of Lierre's?
8. Was your act perpetrated to further Lierre's statements about vegans?
9. Did you do it shut her up, or to promote veganism, or just for fun because it was Pi Day?

Please piers enlighten us. I don't give a crap about her getting pied anymore, I just want to know if you did/are all/any of the things that have been said here in this discussion.
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 8:23 PM
She says it was peppered. How do you know it wasn't?
by Fiona
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 8:44 PM
The pieing did absolutely nothing to bring awareness to anyone. If anything, it intensified hatred on the side of those who decry veg*nism as being foolish and destructive by giving more justification to her tirade.

Activists and anarchists, can we please stop with this bullshit? NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE came out of this. NOTHING. I wholeheartedly disagree with Keith, but doing this to her was rude, completely unnecessary, and gave her and the media reasons to say that veg*ns are as crazy as they want to make us out to be.

I am so disappointed and angry I'm really at a loss for words. This stupid incident will be used as justification to despise our dietary choices for years to come. Fuck.
by Steve
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 8:45 PM
Sun, how do you know it was?

I like to cook. I've gotten small amounts of cayenne pepper on my fingernails, then lightly brushed my eyes. It was *agony*. I couldn't do anything else for many minutes other than pour water into my face. When I was done the skin around my eyes red all over.

Since the prank the sales ranking of her book went from 4500 to about 500.

You have a point though. In the end it comes down to her word against the word of the pranksters.

On one side the pranksters gain nothing but some temporary childish satisfaction and they are paying for it with (rightful) chastisement. On the other side you have an author with no training trying to sell a book and only a small fringe community to appeal too. Her book sales jump significantly, more people are interested in her thoughts, she gets to paint a group she hates with a broad brush AND she is apparently injury free.

Seems like she has all of the motivations to lie and has all of the benefits.
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 8:58 PM
You are right - it's her word against theirs.... Who are they any way?

I wish this hadn't happened.

It tarnishes all animal rights.

Idiots.
by person
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:02 PM
the organizers are planning to issue a statement condemning the assault and confirming that there was indeed cayenne in the pies.
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:23 PM
If there was indeed pepper - they are not pranksters. They assaulted the woman - because they didn't like what she has to say.

They acted like vegan police.

Meanwhile the animal misery continues while mainstream media labels the movement as a bunch of nut jobs - yet again.

Clever - not.
by an omnivore, just like Nature made me
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:31 PM
cities, technology and the future. Their ideology flies in the face of Nature herself. This biosphere simply can't support six billion hunter-gatherers. It's not possible. And cities are a good thing, a very good thing, especially for wilderness. If most of us didn't live in cities, there wouldn't be any wilderness. There's too many of us.

They only way Zerzan and Jensen and the rest of their ilk could ever see their ideals realized is genocide. Or maybe they expect us to just commit mass suicide. Well, forget it. It ain't gonna happen. If you believe that crap, you're dreaming. Wake up.

But Keith is totally correct about veganism. It's an eating disorder, i.e., a form of mental illness. Nature made us omnivores. If you honestly believe that you know better than Nature, you're mentally ill. Get help.
by Monsieur Tofu
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:50 PM
My goal is to become a cyborg as soon as possible.
by Fiona
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:54 PM
I just e-mailed Lierre with an apology for the way she was treated and she was utterly sweet and sincere in her appreciation. I now feel ashamed for referring to her "tirade", rather than what I should have said; her opinion.

I hope the organizers follow through with the planned apology. I hope it is as sincere as her response to me.
by conflict of interest
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:02 PM
they can issue a statement, but they need to address a few issues in it about themselves

1) organizers include Keith's publisher and they need to acknowledge the conflict of interest that any statement involves when people who organize the event also profit from her book sales

2) organizers need to explain why they would bring an author into the bookfair was was known to have written a poorly researched book that unnecessarily slanders vegetarians as ignorant and so forth when they also know that a large number of bookfair attendees over the years are vegetarian or vegan and better informed about diet than Keith

3) based on #2, knowing the vitriol and untrue information Keith spews about vegetarians and that hundreds of vegetarians would be present why did they not have a better security plan in place, or any security plan whatsoever

4) why on earth would it take them a week to come up with a statement if they are going to make one?

somehow I doubt they'll address any of these things, but I thought I'd point out these obvious problems and their own responsibility in the whole mess anyway. more likely, they'll not say much other than make simplistic "bad pie-ers" and "freedom of speech" arguments expressed here already since day one, leading to questions of why release a statement at all at this point. go ahead and surprise me organizers. I dare you. I double-dare you
by sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:05 PM
Assault the woman and post it on youtube with the Benny Hill theme song?

It's still up. Dumb-asses!
by theirs
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:08 PM
Her word says tryptophan can't be found in plant sources, so vegans are angry because they have no serotonin making their brains healthy and balanced. Her word on that is so completely and utterly false that any and all who continue to support, follow, and defend this woman are clearly fools. She lied, people! She lied in her book. She lied on the news yesterday. She's a liar. If you know someone lies (on the news no less—when she could have said ANYTHING else), how do you believe ANYTHING they say?

And, as I have said many times prior to this, there is no evidence that the perpetrators were vegan. Her book is called the "Vegetarian" myth. Why isn't anyone accusing vegetarians? It's been stated over and over that she's anti-trans folks. She was speaking in San Francisco. Any chance any radical trans people might have wanted to humiliate her? She's anti-anarchist, yet she was speaking at an anarchist event. Any chance some annoyed anarchists might have wanted folks to know she wasn't welcome at their event? She's supported by a pro-beef, anti-soy, anti-veg*n lobby. Any chance she and they would want to get some publicity for the book, promote the idea that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy, and make vegans look like angry, unbalanced meanies all while making her Amazon ranking go up?? Jesus people be a little more cynical, she certainly is with her anti-civ ideas.
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:09 PM
"their own responsibility in the whole mess anyway"

That implies that they were partly responsible for the assault that took place. Isn't that a bit like - "You deserved it because of the clothes you were wearing."
by ???
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:13 PM
she could have used your tireless defense too

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/02/18432132.php

oh, wait, she laughed it off and didn't do interviews with middle-class diet fad low-carb websites about how the pieing was like kicking a kitten. she didn't lie about tryptophan not being in any vegan foods. and she didn't call the cops

but her eyes did sting after the pieing and still she showed a level of class Keith will never know
by Fiona
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:18 PM
I am under the impression the attack was not at all related to her views on trans-folks owing to the reports that "Go Vegan" was shouted as the pie was thrown. Can someone who was there (or several people, ideally) speak to where that happened?
by you're just silly or willfully ignorant
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:20 PM
no, because your example is like blaming a rape victim for their rape

the organizers are more responsible in the way a latino conference sponsors would be if they invited Lou Dobbs to speak and blindly looked the other way to the trouble they'd stirred up
by Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:21 PM
If there was pepper - this was assault. Come on - the cops use the stuff...

Three men - from behind. Small frail woman. Which part of this do you not understand?

Do you honestly believe she should just laugh this off?

You will be old and frail one day. Will you just laugh it off if you get assaulted? Will you remember this moment and have some inkling of regret for your words?
by electricsheep
( patrick [at] 7thsign.com ) Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:21 PM
I happen to know that the guy who orchestrated this attack is a big-time WAM fetishist. This act had nothing to do with animal rights and everything to do with getting sexually aroused at seeing women hit in the face with pies. This guy should write Dan Savage for advice, find a loving partner who shares his pie-in-the-face fetish, and stop taking his sexual frustrations out on the innocent.
by sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:23 PM
Point taken. I'm listening and learning.... are you?
by it was a crucifixion, Sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 10:32 PM
it wasn't a pieing, it was an assault, no, it was just like rape, no, it was a crucifixion

seriously though. I'm older than Lierre and in better shape because I have consistently eaten a well-rounded (vegan) diet for decades and I've exercised and I don't flip flop around with foods trying to figure out what nutrition means in my 40s and then try to preach to everyone that I said I was right before but now I'm really right and everyone who doesn't do exactly like me is ignorant and deserves to be attacked in my book

will I laugh it off if I get assaulted, as in actually physically bruised and injured? no. will I laugh it off if I get pied? probably, unless I knew I wrote a dishonest and mean-spirited book and deserved to get pied, then I'd probably do every interview I could and claim that pieing me was just like kicking a kitten, even though I have advocated for the killing of millions by sabotaging the electrical grid, and I'd call the cops hoping for jailtime for the pie-ers who did less than I continually advocate for as far as direct action
by sun
Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 11:54 PM
Using pepper is a police tactic. Did she deserve that?
by sun go down
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 12:24 AM
Lying is a police tactic too. Do vegans deserve her attacks?

She lied about trytophan. She lied about vegans. She lied about pepper too.

Liars don't deserve your devotion.
by punkin' pie
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 12:49 AM
From the picture taken soon after the event, ain't no chance in hell there was pepper in that pie.

I'm sure her eyes stung for a few minutes, as would happen with a "normal" pieing.

I'm also willing to bet that the drama queen with momentarily stinging eyes thought for a sec that it was pepper, then when it became clear that it wasn't, didn't want to retract the story. 1. Because it's more dramatic, and she gets to act an even bigger victim. 2. Because she knows she looks like a huge tool for having a world-class melt-down over a pie on her head. If she tells many activists she was pied and goes on about her great victimization, many are going to roll their eyes. There's a long tradition of pieing and people survive just fine. But if there was pepper in it, well, that's a bigger story apparently, and makes vegans look like even bigger meanies. Plus, her fans get to say that, Hey, that's what the POLICE use (like that would mean something. The police wear shoes too).

But to repeat: there is no way there was pepper in that pie. That picture shows the truth. If you get pepper in your eyes, you have red eyes for awhile. She probably also would have been coughing and sneezing, and no report of that (but just give it time, after the suggestion).

But, say that you want to insist that there was pepper in the pie: if there was pepper in it, and she clearly recovered almost immediately - the proof is in the picture - then it really didn't do more damage than a normal pieing. So what you have is a total melt-down freakout from someone who got a pie on their head, who recovered as quickly as anyone else who got a pie on their head...and who publicly advocates doing some pretty serious illegal crap. I pronounce: drama queen with drama queen supporters.
by thinker
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 1:15 AM
It's a police tactic? So? She LIKES the police, had them called, and is hoping that they work for her and get the scofflaws arrested.

(Oh wait, until she doesn't ALWAYS like them. That is, when she's doing or advocating doing something illegal herself).

Who's gonna arrest Lierre's pie-ers when civilization falls? Think about it hard Lierre. If the power grid goes down, the police will probably be way too busy to go after pie-ers.
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:13 AM
If the power grid goes down nobody will be able to bake pies
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:24 AM
I like to cook. A few times I have gotten minute amounts of cayenne pepper under my finger nails and touched my eyes. I was in AGONY. From just that tiny bit of pepper.

Until I could flush my eyes with water my hands never left my eyes.

In the video, after she was hit with the pies ( colored white, not pink from being mixed with pepper or hot sauce) Lierre Keith is standing for a significantly long moment WITHOUT reflexively rubbing her eyes.

She has everything to gain to lie about being peppered. And she has. An Amazon sales ranking that jumped from 4500 (according to her friends ) to 500 yesterday.

by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:27 AM
Several friends and fans of Keith claim she has no financial motivations behind promoting a book.

If that is true, why didn't she just type her manuscript up into a PDF, put that up on a web site and distribute it for free?

More people would get her message. If she is motivated purely by message that would be the way to go.
by nowhere@nowhere.com
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:31 AM
How do we even know the pranksters were vegan?

The wore masks, the wore plain clothing and they ran out of the room without stopping to talk.

Someone mentioned that the slogan "Go Vegan!" was shouted out. I watched the video. The pranksters moved through the room pretty fast. I couldn't tell if they were shouting or not.

Did the shouted slogan come from the audience?
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:34 AM
I would like to request a rule of engagement for our bicker fest.

I have known people who have been literally raped.

Getting a pie smooshed on your head is not rape. Getting allegedly peppered in your eyes is not rape. Even getting beaten up is not rape. Rape is rape.

Can we please not marginalize the trauma and the people who really have been raped?

by -
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 6:34 AM
Derrick Jensen once turned a family member in or testified against them for child molestation. He also had a thing where recently some local teenager broke into his house about 10 times. He found out who it was after the 6th time or so, and had people tell that kid that he needed to cut it out, and they knew who he is. But he persisted in coming in when he left, in view of his security camera, and taking things from his house. We don't have spanish syndicalist security squads yet, although I guess they could booby trap their house or shoot him with an arrow when he approaches.
by an omnivore, just like Nature made me Thursday Mar 18th, 2010 9:31 PM cities, technology and the future. Their ideology flies in the face of Nature herself. This biosphere simply can't support six billion hunter-gatherers. It's not possible. And cities are a good thing, a very good thing, especially for wilderness. If most of us didn't live in cities, there wouldn't be any wilderness. There's too many of us.

I would like to thank you for mentioning this salient point which Keith and her fans seem to be silent on.

But Keith is totally correct about veganism. It's an eating disorder, i.e., a form of mental illness. Nature made us omnivores. If you honestly believe that you know better than Nature, you're mentally ill. Get help.

I disagree with you.

Keith is a writer with liberal arts background,..only. She doesn't have any training or education in the subjects she wrote about in her book. Quoting a few miscellaneous references doesn't convey expertise. No surprise, she got many facts wrong.

I recently read a book called "The China Study" which has incredible credentials behind it.

The top killers of Americans are cardiovascular disease and cancer. The message of the book is that the more animal products people eat the more likely they are to die from these top killers.

The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.

Dr. Campbell is a scientist who has done human nutrition research for 50 years, a career that has lasted longer than I or Lierre Kieth has been alive. Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

Given those creds I am more likely to agree Dr. Campbell's opinion than yours or Keith's.

by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 7:08 AM
According to a 2006 United Nations report, livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html


Eating a vegan diet reduce green house gas pollution more than driving a Prius
Gidon Eshel* and Pamela A. Martin
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Received 16 May 2005; Final form 12 December 2005
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf


A study out of Carnegie Mellon University found that the average American would do less for the planet by switching to a totally local diet than by going vegetarian one day a week
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/environment/2009/winter/wheres-the-beef.shtml

by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 7:10 AM
The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarians have “lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; … lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer” and that vegetarians are less likely than meat-eaters to be obese.

- Ann Mangels, Virginia Messina, and Vesanto Melina, "Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Jun. 2003, pp. 748-65.

"Children who grow up getting their nutrition from plant foods rather than meats have a tremendous health advantage
They are less likely to develop weight problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer"

Benjamin Spock, M.D., Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care: Seventh Edition, New York: Pocket Books, 1998, p. 333.
by Barry Bliss
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 7:30 AM
1. cayenne can get in your eyes enough to burn them without it looking like it in one particular photo.
2. when it first happened, she probably did not really know what the substance was and/or whether or not it would blind her.
3. I now see that if I ever spoke at a book fair like this I might would get assaulted while expressing my opinion.
I was naive I guess.
I figured we were all saying what we knew and comparing notes and constantly revising our view points as we continued to learn.
Now I know some people are just interested in protecting there current viewpoint and hurting others that see things differently.

they did not stop her from conducting tests on a rabbit
they stopped her from talking about the horrors of factory farms
by Agent A La Mode
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 8:38 AM
Hmmm ... lots of healthy debate in this thread ... so, the pie always forces one to face up to a lot of issues ... but, if pepper really was added to the pie - that's not cool at all ... (get it.) And, seriously, the media will hyper-focus on the "violence" of it all and so on. Use vegan silky tofu next time and keep the harsh stuff out of it. Otherwise, it's no longer just a pie is it? Remember - the pie's the limit.

People will do what their affinity group feels is right ... and, I certainly don't speak for any group or movement. But, I, Agent A La Mode, do feel that putting pepper in the pie is counter-productive and just no fun.
by Sun
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 8:44 AM
So you say she deserved this police tactic. How many animals did you save doing this? How much awareness did you raise to their plight?

None.

How many people read the news and thought animal liberation is full of whack jobs - and not worth listening to?

You used police tactics on a small frail woman. It did nothing to stop the suffering and even took the cause backwards.

You still ague that she deserved it, blind to the damage you are causing.
by Reality
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 8:53 AM
"This biosphere simply can't support six billion hunter-gatherers. It's not possible."

She makes this point in her book. Our current population is inherently unsustainable. Pointing out this fact does not make her a supporter of genocide. Stop trying to shoot the messenger.
by NT
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:01 AM
She said there are no GOOD plants sources of tryptophan. I don't know the science behind it, but it seems to ring true, as many people I've known have been able to cure their depression by following a Paleo diet. You should read "The Mood Cure" by Dr. Julia Ross.
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:10 AM

Americans eat over 9 billion animals a year. The global population is about 7 billion people. The U.S. has about 300 million people.

New antidepressants are coming out all of the time. Vegan are only about 1 percent of the US population, if at that.

They aren't the ones driving the anti-depressant market and omnivores are eating plenty of meat, so as a non-expert my opinion is that tryptophan or some substance in meat is not an issue.

by NT
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:18 AM
While only 1% of the population may be vegan, I'd say that at least 95% of the vegans I've known over the years have been depressed.
by nope
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:19 AM
what makes her a supporter of genocide is the public statements she makes like in the In the Wake interview where she cheers on saboteurs destroying the electrical grid and then glibly going on to say cities only have 13 days worth of food and people would have to figure out what to eat fast. I guess she thinks everyone will start backyard farms and get their first yield in about 2 weeks, right? no, she's talking about massive disorder and starvation. what about people disabled far worse than her? they won't be doing so well when the electricity is yanked out from under them without notice

illegal actions are okay on a giant scale with massive agony created if she supports it, but it someone simply pies here, well then that's the worst crime in the world akin to kicking a kitten and she calls the cops

btw, how feminist is it for a woman to refer to herself as a kitten?
by unscientific blather
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:32 AM
uh, huh, sure, and vegans invented anger and depression and war and murder and are the only people who ever get illnesses

you're just making shit up, but you love it because UNscientificic you use shit like to validate yourself, just like Keith puts out bad information to validate her own diet flip flop in her 40s

there was a real live scientific, peer-reviewed study that was released in the last few weeks that said social or political activism led to greater happiness for those involved, and most of the vegans I've ever met are very activist-minded

so stop with the BS. you think we're ignorant and you're just going to trick us? ain't gonna happen
by SCIENCE IS DEAD
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 9:37 AM
do you realize what an ignorant statement that is to make?

Lierre *says* based on nothing that you are aware of that there is *good* and *bad* tryptophan, or you're just making that up, AND you don't know anything about any related science, but it *seems* to ring true to you and that's that.

Yikes. We are in trouble as a species/planet if that's what passes for critical thought these days. No wonder someone like Keith can pass on such a poorly written, poorly researched book and people will eat it up like the word of god.
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:17 AM
<i>While only 1% of the population may be vegan, I'd say that at least 95% of the vegans I've known over the years have been depressed.</i>

How many vegans have you met?

What methods did you use to determine that they were depressed? The BDI ?

Where did you get your psychology degree?

How many vegans out of the total vegans you met were depressed and how did you computer the percentage?

by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:20 AM
"uh, huh, sure, and vegans invented anger and depression and war and murder and are the only people who ever get illnesses"

No one said that. While eating animal products may not prevent depression, NOT eating them can cause it. I've experienced this myself.
by anecdotal
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:26 AM
yeah, and Keith's thing was caused by veganism, she's so sure of that, even there there is not a single study in the world that shows that, and omnivores get the same exact condition (nevermind that Keith often lies about things like tryptophan)

yeesh, do you people never tire of making non-scientific statements about nutrition. do you even know what the scientific method is or how it works? seriously, do you? do you understand controlling for variables, things like that?

or are any old conclusions that pop into your head just as valuable to you?
by awesome
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:49 AM
Lierre was called out publicly, both in person and online, for lying about Tryptophan in her book. What does she do? Oh, she goes on TV and continues to lie. What a fucking awesome person.

(http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/18641159.php)
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:53 AM
<i>No one said that. While eating animal products may not prevent depression, NOT eating them can cause it. I've experienced this myself. </i>

You *may* have. There is an error in the philosophy of science called "confusing correlation with causation".
Basically, it is assuming that one incident is cause to another if that incident proceeds or coexists with it.

For example: Your dog barks. Your phone rings. You believe your dog barking caused your phone to ring.

I'm not a doctor, neither are you and even medical researchers who have the training have a hard time sorting things out.

All you know is that you, a single person, ate one kind of food and felt better for a while. THATS IT.

BTW.

I've been a vegetarian for 30 years and a vegan for 15.

I have never had any trouble with my feelings that a few talks with a good friend or a weekend getaway didn't solve.


by Agent A La Mode
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 11:07 AM
So, having said, "No Pepper Please," just as a matter of taste (if not principle as well,) I now have to ask if pepper really was used at all. The very clear photos of her just afterward with no redness at all - does raise some questions. And, she was able to continue and go on giving talks and so forth. So, it seems that she really suffered very little more than a typical creaming. And, as she herself says, "the silver lining in the cayenne cloud is that my book went from 4500 on amazon to 1503 yesterday." So, maybe the whole thing was just a publicity stunt to draw attention to an otherwise lackluster book? One has to ask. We always have to look both sides of the pie. And, still I say to all who would consider taking up the pie in the future - refrain from adding toxic or pain-inducing substances to the pie. Keep to the moral pie ground. Save the bitterness for your tart rejoinders and witty critiques. OK, nuff said .. peace out.
by grrrr, yeah I'm mad
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 11:51 AM
here's a Bay Area TV interview where she's lying about tryptophan again: http://cbs5.com/video/?id=63173

so, she was pied because of a non-existent deficiency by mentally deranged vegans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Dietary_sources

it had nothing to do with the fact that she's written an enormously dishonest and unfounded attack on all vegetarians
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 12:10 PM
I'm just amazed that nobody is bringing up her lack of education in the subjects she writes about in her book.
She has a liberal arts degree. THATS IT. She is writing about several different technical and scientific issues.
by Sun
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 12:31 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah.... go vegans go

your ego is bruised so blah blah blah

send the vegan police, pepper her, discredit yourselves

meanwhile animals suffer

there's a bigger cause here than your bruised little selfish egos

Get out there and show the world what animals are going through
It's bigger than just "Getting out there and showing the world what animals are going through" -- and it's not about egos

Keith is doing everything she can to discredit vegetarians, and was doing so looong before the pieing by writing her obnoxiously dishonest book, making it just that much harder to break through and "show the world". Meat-eaters are naturally going to be receptive to her message that vegetarians are ignorant, crazy, and malnourished, because it validates them. Then they are going to be less likely to listen to anything vegetarians have to say about animals, diet, whatever.

She is using the platform she has undeservedly been given to try to pre-emptively silence us.
by 000
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 1:22 PM
I have been posting on this thread since Monday, and this is what I have come away with:

1. Her book is clearly full of unfounded accusations and unscientific research with regards to nutrition (tryptophan example being the most obvious).

2. Her politics are in serious question. Advocating for the end of civ using direct action + calling the cops for retribution against a pie-ing, no matter how annoying it was to her, was foolish and naive.

3. The pie-ing was wrong, immature and cowardly. I still believe that. I think anarchist book fairs need to be safe spaces for all attendees no matter who they are.

4. Confusing her nutrition arguments (weak) with the more general issues of the devastating impacts of agribusiness and monocultures (highly plausible even if she fucks up her arguments on this) isn't going to help anyone. We need good research, good analyses and good ideas in both areas.

5. Based on her comments and the interviews this week, she comes off as hypocritical and insincere. I think her book is more of a psychological exploration of her own issues. A more appropriate title would have been "The Agriculture Myth". She clearly had a target, and from the sounds of the shoddy research, she failed in many areas. (I plan to read it after all of this).

6. Finally, one thing is clear, the pie incident has brought enormous attention to her that she wouldn't have gotten otherwise. In terms of the intended outcome by those responsible, it was a serious FAIL. Without a doubt, the pie in the face has catapulted her ideas very far and wide. An outcome that should have been entirely predictable.
by Steve
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 1:23 PM
<i><b>
by Sun</b>
<br />
Blah blah blah blah blah.... go vegans go
<br />
your ego is bruised so blah blah blah
<br />
send the vegan police, pepper her, discredit yourselves</i>
<p>

This bit you wrote is not exactly doing wonders for your image.
</p><p>
Aren't you doing what you accuse the pie throwers of? Substituting a childish action for a reasoned reply?


</p>
by 000
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 1:37 PM
I just got The China Study. I plan on reading that first before Keith's book. It's a scientific study conducted by two researchers. Dr T. Colin Campbell's bio reads:

"For more than 40 years, Dr. T. Colin Campbell has been at the forefront of nutrition research. His legacy, the China Project, is the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever conducted. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers"

I found it on Amazon, but got it a local small bookstore.

Excerpt of a review:

"The main point of this book is that most nutritional studies that we hear about in the media are poorly constructed because of what the author terms "scientific reductionism." That is, they attempt to pin down the effects of a single nutrient in isolation from all other aspects of diet and lifestyle."

I am sure Keith's book doesn't have the depth that this one does.
by Sun
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 1:39 PM
Pie is fine.

Pepper is not.

If there was pepper.... it was a dumb thing to do. It becomes an assault. Bruised fragile egos seeking revenge. Meanwhile animals suffer...
by lol
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 2:12 PM
I would have once called you an ally, but you're complete non-understanding of the radical politics and dogmatism toward lifestylism is pretty damn embarrassing. Anyone in the animal/earth liberation movement, with any ecological and knowledge of social justice, let alone resistance movements, would be embarrassed as well.

Everyone:

Also, if we want to eliminate cops, we have to actually have COMMUNITY SUPPORT. If every sitting there cheering the pie-throwing weren't immature assholes with no real intention in resisting, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, she would have had the kind of protection that anarchist ideology preaches. But no, like the privileged kids they are, they all just sit there, not realizing their own perpetuation of oppression.
by one week later
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 2:22 PM
okay, so now you know what many of us have been aggravated about for the last year, not just at keith but at pm and bound together too

and while you think the pie imbroglio was counterproductive, you can certainly see why folks are mad at her (and it's not an imbalance in their diet)

peace out
by nus
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 2:36 PM
Pepper is fine.

Pie is not.

If pie was there.... it do a dumb thing. It becomes a salt without pepper in your pie. Bruised ex-veg ego seeking revenge with book, gets pie without salt. Meanwhile book sales profit and animals suffer...
by the Gut
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 3:34 PM
http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/voracious/2010/03/friday_food_freak-out_oh_the_i.php

I don't want to give the impression that I think unprovoked assault is acceptable.

I don't want you people to think that I'm in favor of hooded hooligans attacking writers in public.

I don't want anyone to to construe my barely suppressed giggling here as a tacit endorsement of the tactics of San Francisco animal rights radicals.

But seriously? What's funnier than seeing someone get hit in the face with a pie?

...

For her part, Keith (who is an advocate of militant action, property destruction--anything that can facilitate change) was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying, "If this is what is considered radical action, this movement is dead."

Is it? I'm not so sure about that. Infighting among radical groups is certainly nothing new. Those who abandon the cause are almost always treated most harshly by their former comrades. And the ol' pie-in-the-face? That's considered by some to be a classic satirist's weapon, useful for making a mockery of one's opponent and deflating the pomp of fools. I just find it hard to take it seriously when radicals complain about their own tactics being used against them.
by fyi/lol
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 3:47 PM
http://twitter.com/lierre_keith
by me likee
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:06 PM
1. @primmie nope. no tryptophan in tofurkey, or for that matter, kidney beans, soy beans, pinto beans, winged beans... about 3 hours ago via web in reply to primmie

2. There are no vegan sources of tryptophan. But don't google that, please. Just trust me. about 5 hours ago via web

3. #FF @WestonAPrice @livinlowcarbman @PaleoPrincess @mudbeard @primmie about 7 hours ago via web

4. Flattered to have the Weston A Price Foundation following me! Who cares if Price was a bit nuts, he defended our RIGHT to eat meat! about 7 hours ago via Tweed

5. RT @PaleoPrincess: @Lierre_Keith I recently ate two squirrels on a mountain, boiled in snow. Probably not my favorite recipe! http://bit ... about 22 hours ago via web

6. Gotta run, squirrel hunting time. Boy they're harder to find in Kansas than they are in Massachusetts! What's your favorite squirrel recipe? about 22 hours ago via web

7. @livinlowcarbman yeah thank goodness it's gone! I hate when people impersonate me. It's really not funny. about 22 hours ago via web in reply to livinlowcarbman

8. Are the people in this CBS5 spot actually vegan?? They were way too friendly and that salad dressing is creamy! http://bit.ly/cJ1WBp about 22 hours ago via web

9. @BethanneElion definitely! with any luck, we'll be able to bring down civilization soon. about 22 hours ago via web in reply to BethanneElion

10. I love bacon. Feeding animals grain is okay because you're not actually eating the grain itself. Paleo for life. about 22 hours ago via web

11. The silver lining in the cayenne cloud is that my book went from 4500 on amazon to 1503 yesterday! 8:21 AM Mar 18th via web

12. @choosevegan I think you must have a case of the "brain fog"! 8:02 AM Mar 18th via web in reply to choosevegan

13. Why does everyone think it's such a big deal that I want to destroy the electric grid? 7:56 AM Mar 18th via web

14. .@peta = blocked 10:23 PM Mar 17th via web

15. Stopped at McDonald's for dinner. It's hard to find grass-fed buffalo while traveling. 9:42 PM Mar 17th via web

16. Before anyone asks, yes, it's really me. and no, using twitter doesn't go against my desire to tear down civilization. 3:06 PM Mar 17th via Tweed
by 000
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:53 PM
If those are really her comments (http://twitter.com/lierre_keith), she is an idiot. Can anyone verify that is her account on twitter? Who the fuck would say "There are no vegan sources of tryptophan. But don't google that, please. Just trust me" ?? That line makes me think it's not her account, cuz no one would post that for realz. or maybe not??

Tryptophan from spirulina:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2765/2 (click on protein and amino acids)

Tryptophan from soy beans:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2925/2 (click on protein and amino acids)

other nutrition sites confirm this.
by joke
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 5:09 PM
keith would never say: There are no vegan sources of tryptophan. But don't google that, please. Just trust me

that gives away her misinformation game

keith would only ever really say: There are no vegan sources of tryptophan and that's why they are mean evil people worthy of your contempt


I think some people think it's real though as she got a tweet from paleoprincess who apparently has no problem with experimenting with kill methods on camping trips and managed to capture two squirrels, kill them with rocks, and eat them

http://paleoprincess.com/2010/03/12/stick-out-your-tongue-and-look-at-it-youre-an-animal/


found that here: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%40lierre_keith
by not real
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 5:22 PM
there is plenty of tryptophan in vegan foods. And evening primrose seed contains the most tryptophan of any food, vegan or not. Almonds are another great source, but in lierres dream world, there is no tryptophan in plants. that twitter is great satire!
by chat'n up a storm
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 6:06 PM
out of curiosity, I did a "print preview" in my browser to see how big this thread was, and it's at 133 pages, if I were to waste the paper to print this sucka
by AG
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 6:41 PM
That is a fake account, not really LK.
by but
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 6:48 PM
it's damn funny
by Ratter of the Shire
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 10:15 PM
"She instead chose to rebuke her own former vegan self by verbally assaulting all veg*ns, calling them ignorant and child-like, sometimes based on nothing more than dishonest accounts of anonymous online comment threads or her own self-loathing. "

Ya, and throwing pie in somebodies face is the epitome of maturity.

"She instead chose to rebuke her own former vegan self by verbally assaulting all veg*ns, calling them ignorant and child-like, sometimes based on nothing more than dishonest accounts of anonymous online comment threads or her own self-loathing"

And disagreement is now an assault worthy of physical retaliation? Seems strangely reminiscent of of totalitarian regimes. If you don't like a speaker invited by a publisher, don't go. If you don't like an argument, rebut it. However under no circumstance is violence an argument whether you decorate and obfuscate it with the label "direct action" or not.
Hitting Weyerhaeuser's computers once might be fun for a day or two, but it's not going to have any long term effect. But a coordinated effort of attacks against the electric grid, the biggest financial markets, and a list of the worst environmental offenders would. It would require planning, discipline, and tremendous self-sacrifice on the part of activists. But it could be done. It would create social upheaval and possibly civil unrest. The average American city has enough food to last 13 days. Economies would have to go local again, and fast.

http://www.inthewake.org/keith1.html

Lierre is cool with millions - disabled, children, elderly, women, and men - dieing as a result of sabotage.


thanks for dropping by, Ratter. thanks for playing. don't let the door hit your ass on the way out
by I heart Peter Young
Friday Mar 19th, 2010 11:46 PM
@ lol:

you:
"Also, if we want to eliminate cops, we have to actually have COMMUNITY SUPPORT."

me:
Lierre is not in my community, and she LIKES cops. She had them called to try to apprehend the pie activists (well, she likes them until she's advocating or doing illegal things herself).

She's not in my community because she aggressively advocates the destruction of innocent animals. She's not in my community because she bitterly, nonsensically, and dishonestly aims her worst ire towards veg*ns - those who are trying to create a more compassionate world for all earthlings. She incorrectly conflates an industrial agriculture argument with an uniformed rant about nutrition. She's welcome to eat whatever she wants, but she actually receives compensation from animal agriculture lobbyists (WPF) to spout her nonsense.
by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 6:43 AM
by 000 Friday Mar 19th, 2010 4:53 PM If those are really her comments (http://twitter.com/lierre_keith), she is an idiot. Can anyone verify that is her account on twitter? Who the fuck would say "There are no vegan sources of tryptophan.

000;

The twitter account is a spoof.

An earlier comment posted a youtube link to Keith being interviewed on the local news ( coverage she wouldn't have got, courtesy of the pie throwers ) where they claim she is still stating that vegans don't tryptophan and are depressed/violent as a result. I did not watch the clip myself.

You can use your browser to quickly find that comment by searching on "tryptophan" or "youtube". Nutritiondata.com is a great site. It, other sites, and software you have to pay for taps the USDA database. I don't know if it is a significant amount, but I noticed on nutritiondata.com that even brown rice has tryptophan

by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 6:57 AM
1. People will judge you, your group and your cause by how you treat others. If you do something that
requires wearing a mask, it behooves you to contemplate the possible blowback first.

2. Anger, a genuine talent for powerful prose or a conspiracy theory are not substitutes for having a formal education and credentials behind your opinion. Even on the internet. It is called knowing what you talk about.

3. If you are writer, people will remember what you write and take it seriously. Imagine that. Ditto since this is the age of the internet. Advocating violence against other people or exclusion of minority groups when you belong to a marginalized group yourself identifies you, correctly, as a hypocrite.

by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 7:05 AM
"Plant-based dietary patterns should be encouraged for optimal health and environmental benefits. Food policies are warranted to...reduce the cultural and economic forces that make it difficult to promote plant-based dietary patterns."

- The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, March 2010

by Sun
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 8:07 AM
The absolute irony here is it looks like you vegans anarchists have created your own totalitarian police state.

In your world, no one is allowed to express ideas that contradict your own.

You do not debate. You don masks and pepper from behind.

Then run away.

Humiliate your victim with a planned filming and posting on YouTube.

Then you laugh when your victim calls the other police state - because of your police state actions.

WTF.

What happened to real action?
by yally
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 9:22 AM
"you vegans"

Way to lump in a diverse group of folks with differing ideas because a few do something you don't like. Some vegans said they don't like pie-ing; some are fine with it. The sane ones recognize that it's JUST a pie (and even if it had pepper - which all evidence points to no - that pepper had extremely minimal effect). The drama queens - both vegan and nonvegan - harp on a pie throwing like it's the end of the world. "OMG! OMG! Someone threw a pie! A PIE!" Just absolutely ridiculous. Dang - get a sense of perspective before you have an aneurysm.

You realize that what she promotes for animals - death and destruction - is a LOT worse, right? When you're out there pumping up death and destruction, and hatred and aggressiveness (as she does towards vegetarians), there might be a little blowback.


by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 9:35 AM
I must say there really is a lot of exaggerating going on on this thread--in both directions.
I have assuredly exaggerated a bit myself.
I am still working on becoming more honest.
I just wonder how many of you are interested in the truth as opposed to protecting your position, even if that position is wrong to one degree or another.
Some good points have been made (and no I don't see myself as the grand wizard judge of all posts) and I have liked reading them.

To me--Lierre has brought up some very important issues regarding agriculture's harmfulness.
I became an ex-vegan before reading her book (16 years vegan--16 months raw-vegan) and so she did not win me over per se.
If someone is not interested in reading her book I advocate they not read it.
Simple.

The pieing, as I have already said, I consider violence and non-sense--pepper or no pepper.
by tell that to Lierre
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 9:42 AM
Hitting Weyerhaeuser's computers once might be fun for a day or two, but it's not going to have any long term effect. But a coordinated effort of attacks against the electric grid, the biggest financial markets, and a list of the worst environmental offenders would. It would require planning, discipline, and tremendous self-sacrifice on the part of activists. But it could be done. It would create social upheaval and possibly civil unrest. The average American city has enough food to last 13 days. Economies would have to go local again, and fast.

http://www.inthewake.org/keith1.html

Lierre is cool with millions - disabled, children, elderly, women, and men - dieing as a result of sabotage.

thanks for dropping by, Barry. thanks for playing. don't let the door hit your ass on the way out
by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 10:33 AM
"Lierre is cool with millions - disabled, children, elderly, women, and men - dieing as a result of sabotage."
Are you cool with millions dieing so that the flow of electricity can continue?

"Thanks for dropping by, Barry."
You're welcome.

"thanks for playing."
Well, I'm serious.
"don't let the door hit your ass on the way out"
You are assuming I am on the way out.
(You are also assuming that I have an ass, which I admit is true.)

PS One of us is not using his/her real name.
by me
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 11:09 AM
"If someone is not interested in reading her book I advocate they not read it.
Simple."

The problem is that many vegans are appalled by what happens to animals - even on those so-called "humane" farms http://www.humanemyth.org

Lierre has aggressively gone after vegans, with easily disprovable nutrition info (tryptophan being only one example). She's gone from personal anecdote to making it very political. For those trying to protect some of the most brutalized and helpless earthlings among us - farmed animals - just a personal boycott isn't enough (unless you think the only action abolitionists should have taken was to just not personally own slaves). Her work is political, full of falsehoods intended to scare people into killing animals, and deserves a response.
by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 11:43 AM

Hi, me.

Killing is involved in all diets.

This does not apply to all vegans, but take bananas for instance.
Organic bananas grown by Dole and flown or shipped to the U.S.
How many people, animals with eyes, and other creatures are killed for that to take place?
How many animals are killed to clear the land for veggies to be grown?
How many creatures are murdered so that agriculture can happen?
My current take on it all is-roughly speaking--that to keep everything balanced eating animals must occur sometimes.
I believe that some meat eaters kill far less to eat than do some vegans.

As far as over-population goes in regards to hunter-gather lifestyles that is difficult.
I am just not so sure that continuing to do one of the things that threw our habitat off balance is the way to go.

Again, I appreciate all the posts given by sincere people with a true concern for doing what is right.

I believed my body was damaged and sick after 16 years of exclusive veganism.
I believed the philosophy of never eating animals with faces was not quite aligned with the big picture.
I made a conscious choice to buy some eggs from an amish man and eat them.
I will go back to veganism if I ever believe it's the right thing to do.

Debate I welcome.
Facts and viewpoints I welcome.
Clever remarks and exaggerations I don't have time for.

Also, this is my real name and it's easy to find me.
( Not that I am nearly as known as Lierre, but why should I now have to deal with the fact that I too might be pied by a masked man or woman when I am doing my best to live honestly and as non-violently as possible?
by Taylor
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 12:11 PM
Here's a useful guide to the number of animals killed to produce equal amounts of calories from different foods:
http://www.animalvisuals.org/data/1mc/

"The results of this estimation show that a diet that includes animal products will result in more animal deaths than a plant-based diet with the same number of calories. The production of chicken meat results in vastly more animal deaths than any other category of food. Based on this estimation, someone wanting to modify their eating habits in order to reduce animal suffering and death should start by removing chicken from their diet, then eggs. Although beef may cause more animal deaths than pork, pork probably causes more suffering, because most of the beef-related deaths are wild animals, and in comparison, a greater number of the pork-related deaths are factory farmed animals. The most animal suffering and death can be prevented by following a vegan diet."
by Real Names Are Important
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 12:20 PM
In addition to the above graphic someone else posted, here's some more info for you (since you seem curious about real answers and arguments):

"Organic bananas grown by Dole and flown or shipped to the U.S.
How many people, animals with eyes, and other creatures are killed for that to take place?"

Per banana or per calorie, many many fewer animals than a steak or calorie of grass-fed beef. Bananas are not a great example to use for this comparison though, although they do ironically contain tryptophan which Lierre insists can only come from animal foods.

"How many animals are killed to clear the land for veggies to be grown?"

Fewer than are killed to clear the land, grow pasture, and raise livestock. The myth that it could be otherwise was disproved by Gaverick Matheny in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics in 2003 (you know, real research). Additionally, the animals that die in crop production are allowed to live freely, without control of humans, until their unfortunate deaths. These are unavoidable deaths and (unlike what Lierre claims) vegans are very conscious of the fact that their diets still involve death. But to put their death on the same ethical plane as the intentional enslavement, rape and murder of sentient beings at the hands of humans would be like comparing a human death in an accidental car crash to a premeditated kidnapping and murder of a small child. Accidents are amoral, and all we can do is work towards minimizing those accidents. For instance, conventional pesticides and chemical fertilizers are indeed a disgusting abuse of the land and result in countless deaths of birds and fish, so I do believe that vegans should feel obligate to research their food sources. Into the future, we need to move toward no-till permaculture gardens, both large and small, that work with and feed nature while also feeding humans.

"How many creatures are murdered so that agriculture can happen?"

Murdered? None.

"My current take on it all is-roughly speaking--that to keep everything balanced eating animals must occur sometimes."

Yeah, that's true. Carnivores in nature do need to eat animals to keep everything in balance. Humans don't, with the exception of perhaps eating insects that have died naturally and are found on dirty, unwashed vegetables. (The Weston A Price foundation says these insects should be a good source of B12 and explain how entire vegan towns in South India have been able to thrive.)

"I believe that some meat eaters kill far less to eat than do some vegans."

Doubtful, but theoretically possible. That doesn't change that there is a fundamental ethical difference between premeditated enslavement and murder vs. accidental or incidental deaths of wild, free-roaming insects and small mammals. Of course, if you're going on the inane assumption that plants have "feelings" and that their deaths are of importance as well, there's not much I can say to you except that 1. lol and 2. a vegan diet requires many fewer plant deaths since animals require many times the calories of plants to produce animal calories (ranging from about 3x for chicken flesh to 12x or more for beef). Don't forget that cows are enormous animals that trample pasture, killing plants, insects and sometimes small mammals. And that even the most "holistic" rancher must kill native predators at times to protect his or her pastured livestock, so their blood is on your hands too.
by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 1:02 PM
While I disagree with you in some ways I can also appreciate the obvious attempt to engage in a real discussion for the good of all.
I also see some good stuff there, and, while it does not really convince me that we are not omnivores, nor that we should not eat as such, again, I can appreciate some of those viewpoints.
Thanks for taking the time to post that.

You know, besides the debate of vegan or meat-eating there is, on a relative scale, the question of how many deaths you are taking part in overall in regards to cellphones (I don't have one.), computers (I use one often.), etc.
I guess that's another topic almost.

I appreciate the honest replies.
I do not appreciate the egotistical/fear-based ones.

In my life right now, doing my very best and being open to what is right for me, I must continue eating animals sometimes.
I applaud all of you that are serious about living peacefully.
by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 2:20 PM
@Barry Bliss

Lierre Keith is a writer with a liberal arts background. She doesn't have an education or training in anything remotely related to the technical issues she wrote about. Factual errors have been found in Keiths book, even by fans giving it positive reviews. From what I have seen of the the low carb authors, other books focusing on meat centered diets are not that much better.

On the other side there is a book with great credibility called "The China Study"

The China Study was the largest, most comprehensive human nutrition study in history. The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.

Dr. T Colin Campbell, the scientist who ran the study and the author of the book has been doing nutrition research for 50 years. Longer than probably any of us have even been alive.

Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

His message: the more animal products people eat the more diseases they get. He highly recommends a plant based diet as the result of The China Study and what he has learned over his 50 year career as a nutrition researcher.
by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 2:35 PM
by VIDEO Tuesday Mar 16th, 2010 1:45 PM
the version with Benny Hill was hidden, so here's a silent version
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/1...

Not the copy I had bookmarked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPayTWlAQ0k

by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 2:51 PM
We are not herbivores nor carnivores.
Our digestive tract is not like the cow, nor is it like the lion.

I believe we need some animal fats to be healthy.

The hunter-gatherer way was fine.
With agriculture we messed that up.
Now, because we did things which caused overpopulation, we are in a heap of trouble.
Some vegans say "Hunter gatherer is fine, but there are too many people for that".
That is true, because we did not keep doing that, but farmed instead.
Now there are no easy answers, but we are still omnivores.
I guess that sort-of sums up where I am at on the vegan vs meat eater thing.
by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 4:15 PM
No snottyness (sp?) intended but I will stick with research, stats and facts from the experts like "The China Study" versus emotional reasoning.
by Men Against Misogyny
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 5:58 PM
> the debate of vegan or meat-eating

There are more than these two choices. We can, for example, be vegetarian but not vegan. We can also eat meat in ways and amounts that are not only not bad for our health and our environment, but are actually good for both. Factory farming, with hormones and antibiotics is not one of these ways. But that's not the only way to raise meat. In fact, it's a very recent phenomenon. But if you count all the meat we have raised throughout history, most of it has been raised organically and sustainably.


> “Plant-based dietary patterns should be encouraged for optimal health and environmental benefits.”

“Plant-based” does not mean “no meat at all.” To infer that it does is simply dishonest.


> you vegans anarchists

Don't confuse anarchists with vegans. The vast, overwhelming majority of anarchists are NOT vegans. Veganism is NOT an anarchist principle. Most vegans are not anarchists. Veganism transcends political affiliation. Vegans are just as likely to be Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Nazis, or simply apolitical.


> the number of animals killed

The number of animals killed is not the issue here. Neither is which diet is more healthy, or what kinds of agriculture are best/worst for the environment.

The issue here is the cowardly, misogynist assault on a disabled woman by people who didn't like what she had to say. Anyone not talking about that, is trying to distract us from what actually happened. Why would they do that? More important, why should we fall for it?
by Steve Ongerth
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 6:16 PM
...that anarchism =/= veganism?

I am an anarchist and /not/ a vegan. Please do not lump in the thugs who threw the pie with anarchists or anarchism.

Regardless of whether or not the arguments in Keith's book have any merit (I have no opinion, not having read the book), I think pieing her was a cowardly and counterproductive act. She was not a member of the capitalist / ruling class and was therefore quite accessible to those who disagree with her (unlike folks like Willie Brown or Bill Gates, for example). The appropriate action would be to debate her arguments on their merits as was done with John Zerzan (quite effectively, I might add).

Whether or not Keith was dismissive of anarchism or called the cops (actions I would not support myself) is beside the point.
by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 6:34 PM
I was simply writing about certain issues that were brought up in this thread.
I believe all my comments were relevant.
Maybe you did not read every post (I didn't.), but I made it clear more than once that I was 100% against the attack on Lierre.
I emailed with her a few times (as did many others) and then simply moved on to address some subjects surrounding this.
I did not realize that there was an unspoken rule that we must mention Keith specifically in every post. (Probably because there isn't one.)


I don't eat any meat except grass-fed and finished from the local Farmer's Market.
I did not switch from vegan to any meat available.
The discussion I was involved in regarding meat-eating vs veganism was an either/or in my eyes. I was talking about hunted or grass fed meat vs no meat at all (and I guess no eggs or dairy as well).
by Barry Bliss
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 6:40 PM
"The appropriate action would be to debate her arguments on their merits as was done with John Zerzan (quite effectively, I might add)."

Is there a thread on this site where I can read about the debate with John?
by Steve
Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 7:58 PM
I don't eat any meat except grass-fed and finished from the local Farmer's Market. I did not switch from vegan to any meat available.

That really doesn't make that much difference. Pigs have been rated as less intelligent than dolphins, but more intelligent than dogs. I've spent time with cows. Like dogs they remember who you are and have emotions. Even chickens have much more intelligence than was previously thought.

Your meat may be grass fed, but it still came from an animal that was killed against its will, an animal that can suffer like your dog or your cat and an animal that wanted to live like you do. It was killed not to save your life, not sustain your life in light of some medical evidence. It was killed to fit your life style preferences.

There isn't enough land to give every human being grass fed meat.

Whatever benefits grass fed meat has it is a temporary one for a limited number of fortunate people

I don't know about a "vegetarian myth" but there are enough facts for a book called "the responsible meat eating myth".

by Barry Bliss
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 7:27 AM
16 years vegan-some raw.
Read a good amount of literature written by meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans.
Meditated on it.
Prayed about it.
Decided to incorporate animal products into my diet.

Lierre has the right to speak.
by JFW
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 8:08 AM
more peepul need to stand up to morons like this womyn and stop her from saying stupid stuff like she was saying. Everyone knows she is wrong and she shouldnt be allowed to spew hatred like she was doing. Rise up people! Take back our planet!
by Barry Bliss
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 8:08 AM
Vegan 16 years.
Read many viewpoints.
Prayed about it.
Meditated on it.
Decided to incorporate animal products into my diet.

I believe Lierre has the right to speak, as do her detractors.
by Barry Bliss
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 8:10 AM
I did not realize my first post of the day went through.
Did not mean to basically repeat.
by c
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 8:28 AM
The thing is, the circle of kids who did this really ought to make sure that they aren't engaged in any 'real' direct action of even mildly illegal nature, because they are creating such a commotion, and also leaving all sorts of hints about their identity. The authorities who we know are in charge of identifying the domestic animal terrorists, (and have been coming up somewhat empty in recent years) would love any excuse to barge in and take names. We all heard about the Eric McDavid case, where they apparently sent in a teenage undercover FBI informer to try to set him up because he liked a Derrick Jensen book. It's not far fetched to imagine that outsiders would be very interested in all of this. Moreover, I bet that the Lierre Keith circle has to be pondering whether they should develop a retaliatory prank at all, because this matches 1970s style Cointelpro stuff, where a disinformation agent staged harsh insults between groups of Black panthers, setting off angry battles. The disrespect that they showed resembles this cayenne pie incident.
by Steve
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 8:54 AM
by Barry Bliss
16 years vegan-some raw.

That is a warning sign. Raw foodism never had a basis in science. In fact many of the beliefs raw foodist authors write contradicts very solid facts known for centuries. They are probably the same if not lower on the credibility scale as Keith.

I'm not writing this to be insulting. I'm just pointing out, esp for others, it is not an indicator of credible decisions.

Meditated on it.
Prayed about it.

Both great practices for your health, I'm a daily meditator myself. However neither prayer nor meditation is a source of facts for nutrition information.

Research studies, medical science good citations and good books are.

I recommend "The China Study", you can probably read it for free from your library.

The China Study was the largest, most comprehensive human nutrition study in history. The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It was run by Dr. T Colin Campbell who has been doing nutrition research for 50 years. Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding, authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

The message of his book is that the top killers of Americans are cardiovacular diseases and cancer, your risk for both goes up eating animal products and your risk for both goes down eating a plant based diet.

Lierre has the right to speak.

It is not a flattering thing for me to write, but I've been following this thread for a week. I've read people calling the allegations of pepper use into question and I've read people brushing off the prank, as a prank.

I don't think I've read anyone stating that Kieth does not have a right to speak.

by vegan cabal
Sunday Mar 21st, 2010 4:07 PM
means freedom from assumption. Following the inscrutable research, vegan is right. Following the emotional feeling when I ate animal parts, vegan is right. Check out the truth with your own research and stop causing unnecessary suffering in the world.

Many of these posts show intense consideration and passion, thanks for sharing it.
by Steve
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 5:29 AM
I've been reading the Amazon reviews of Keith's books and a few of Jensens (sp?).

In both sections I've noticed people giving them positive reviews, even while pointing out egregious errors in matters of fact. It goes along the line of "S/he is spot on about vegetarianism, but I happen to be ___ and what s/he said about ____ is flat out wrong".

In other words, they like the book because they want to read something that sticks it to vegetarianism so they can feel more comfortable about their choices, but their integrity to their education motivates them to point where Keith/Jensen are wrong beyond that.

All different kinds of people do this sort of thing. I don't hold it against them. In fact, I applaud their honesty in being willing to point out those factual errors.

For what it is worth, if I read a purportedly nonfiction book that got facts wrong I would not give it a positive review.

The whole point in buying or reading a non-fiction book is to learn more facts

Fail.
by twitter
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 3:29 PM
she's got all these middle class low-carb fad dieters rallying to her defense: http://twitter.com/#search?q=%40lierre_keith
by Steve
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 3:55 PM

Why is it a crime to middle class instead of being poor or rich?

No news otherwise. The only enthusiastic supporters I've seen of Keiths have been people into meat centered fad diets or who have felt censured by vegetarians ( rightfully or wrongfully ).

People always want to hear good news about their bad habits even if it is flotsam fabricated by a woman without the education or training to write about the subject .
by farcical
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 4:51 PM
no doubt they haven't even read her book. if they did, they'd know that she wants to wipe away their privilege and have them all hunting and gathering after her much-longed-for mass human die-off

they have no idea what they are talking about but they'll fight to the end to defend someone who hates them and most of humanity

it would be farcical if it weren't true
by c
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 5:29 PM
hey

I assume most people who go to bookstores have encountered Jared Diamond's Collapse, or Guns, Germs and Steel.

Do you think Diamond is egging on collapse by pointing out dynamics which caused the rapid decline of previous civilizations? Or is it just an observation on his part.

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375
by different
Monday Mar 22nd, 2010 9:18 PM
Jared Diamond is a scholar and historian. He doesn't promote an ideology. Lierre Keith is an uneducated buffoon rooting for the collapse of human civilization. She advocates shooting men who are accused of misogyny and shrugs off the potential of killing innocents. There is no comparison between the two.
by Steve
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 6:20 AM
I saw Old Punk's comment last night. It wasn't a compliment to anarchists, but it wasn't harsh or an insult either. Old Punk, why don't you repost it and see what happens?

Note... I have nothing against anarchists....I don't know anything about them or their subculture.

So far, this comment section has been pretty good about letting people write what is on their minds.
by mikki
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 10:31 AM
i absolutely disagree with what happened. im so tired of self righteous vegans who think that anyone who isnt vegan is wrong. her book is in no way supporting factory farming in fact it does the exact opposite. not everyone wants to or can justify being vegan and it is IMPORTANT for people to have the knowledge to mak...e the best choice when eating meat, local organic farms.


her book summary:
Part memoir, nutritional primer, and political manifesto, this controversial examination exposes the destructive history of agriculture... See More—causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil—and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating—or not eating—animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.
by Steve
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 12:44 PM
by mikki
i absolutely disagree with what happened. im so tired of self righteous vegans who think that anyone who isnt vegan is wrong.

I'm a vegan. Your point doesn't make any sense.

If I didn't think eating animals products was wrong, I wouldn't be vegan in the first place.

Can a person think another person is wrong on a matter without that person being accused of being self righteous?

her book is in no way supporting factory farming

But it does support ( with mistakes about the facts ) using animals for food, which vegans are against. So, vegans are going to have comments about the book.

not everyone wants to
True.

can justify being vegan
False.

and it is IMPORTANT for people to have the knowledge to mak...e the best choice when eating meat, local organic farms.

In terms of both personal and environmental health that is is merely choosing between a smaller caliber bullet versus a larger caliber bullet.

If you are truly interested in knowledge....facts, go to your library and read a copy of "The China Study" for free. Then google on what the UN has to say about livestock production being a bigger contributor to pollution than Americans driving cars.

It is not my intent to come off as "self righteous", but I think comments like yours ( though not necessarily yours ) are simply about people who want to eat meat are smart enough to see that it is a problem, who feel uncomfortable about that conflict and instead of dealing with it project it onto others as being "self righteous" or having some other fault. No offense to you, but get honest.
by Old Punk
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 1:18 PM
Thanks for the support Steve. However, unlike Indymedia here in the UK, it seems that any form of down-to-earth dissent and forthright opinions aren't tolerated by the trigger-happy censors on this site - you'll notice that my last post criticising the decision to remove my original post has now also disappeared.

Stalin would've been proud.
by Steve
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 4:02 PM
Old Punk;

I'm impressed.

Many people have written many extreme things in this thread. Apparently that is all fair game until you have something to say about anarchists or the management of the Indybay.

Still, admist the muck a lot of good messages got out.

I'm glad for that.

The pie throwers gave Keith's book a boost in sales and publicity ( she needs to send them a thank you card ), but her lack of qualifications for writing that book and her glaring errors of fact ( not to mention her provincial bigotry ) got exposed.
by punkin' pie
Tuesday Mar 23rd, 2010 10:36 PM
"I don't know about a 'vegetarian myth' but there are enough facts for a book called 'the responsible meat eating myth'."

See http://www.humanemyth.org
also http://www.peacefulprairie.org/letter.html

Thanks for your passion for animals.


#6, is a first time mother. She is frantic. Her baby is missing. She is pacing desperately up and down the paddock, bellowing and crying, and calling for her lost boy, fearing the worst, having her fears confirmed. She is one of the thousands of defenseless females born into a quaint, verdant, organic dairy farm. She will spend her entire short life grieving the loss of baby after baby. She will be milked relentlessly through repeated cycles of pregnancies and bereavements. Her only experience of motherhood will be that of a mother's worst loss. In the prime of her life, her body will give, her spirit will break, her milk "production" will decline, and she will be sent to a horrifying slaughter, along with other grieving, defeated, "spent" mothers like herself.

She is the face of organic milk.


#35 is a two-days old baby, his umbilical chord is still attached, his coat is still slick with birth fluids, his eyes are unfocused, his legs, wobbly. He is crying pitifully for his mother. No one answers. He will live his entire short life an orphan, his only experience of mother love will be one of yearning for it, his only experience of emotional connection, one of absence. Soon, the memory of his mother, her face, her voice, her scent, will fade, but the painful, irrepressible longing for her warmth will still be there. At four months old, he and other orphans like himself will be corralled into trucks and hauled to slaughter. As he will be dragged onto the killing floor, he will still be looking for his mother, still desperately needing her nurturing presence, especially at that dark time when he will be frightened and needing her more than ever in the midst of the terrible sights, and sounds, and scents of death all around him and, in his despair, in his want for a shred of consolation and protection, he, like most baby calves, will try to suckle the fingers of his killers.

He is the face of the "rose" veal we are encouraging "responsible restaurant leaders" to use.
by Michael
Wednesday Mar 24th, 2010 3:34 PM
"anonymous masked peoples stood up"

This is the act of cowards, and you sound like a real idiot with a comment like that.

People that "stand up" don't hide behind masks and run away.
by Mark E. Smith
Thursday Mar 25th, 2010 2:19 AM
I hope it is something that you freely chose to read. That's kinda important. If there's anything I don't like, it is people trying to influence what I do or don't read. If that happens, it must mean I'm in prison. I'm going to read whatever the fuck I want to read, and I don't think that's very radical or revolutionary of me. If there are "anarchists" who don't like my freedom to read whatever I want, fuck 'em. I enjoyed Lierre Keith's book (my copy is currently on loan to a friend). I also own many of Ward Churchill's books and a few of Derrick Jensen's. My all time favorite book is Winona LaDuke's All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. My all-time favorite writer is the late (but immortal) Andrea Dworkin. I happen to hold certain beliefs, and among those beliefs are that if there is anything that you can take with you when you die, it would be what's in your head. I don't know if there is existence after death, but I believe that knowledge is a much safer investment than material goods. Whether or not it contains errors, I learned things from Lierre's book, , and knowledge happens to be what I value most in life. Those who would stifle dissent, don't really care much about freedom. If the pie guys are anarchists, I must be the Queen of England.
by Joey Cain
Thursday Mar 25th, 2010 1:39 PM
The Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair organizers wish to publicly condemn the violent assault committed against author Lierre Keith at the Book Fair on Saturday, March 13. We wish to extend our apologies to her for not taking more rigorous measures to assure her safety at our event. We urge the Anarchist community and our allies to let the perpetrators of this ugly assault and their supporters know that we will not stand for this kind of violent bullying at our events or in our community.

We want to state the following for the record:

1) The three pies used to assault Ms Keith were in fact filled with red hot sauce and cayenne pepper. There was so much in the “pies” that you could smell the pepper sauce in the area of the speaker’s podium after the attack. We had to warn speakers using the microphone after the attack to not put it too close to their mouths in order to avoid burning their lips from the residue that could not be removed from the microphone. The comrades who had cleaned up the area are willing to testify to these facts.

2) The assailants used a back door leading in from the parking area to gain entry to the auditorium stage which was above and behind the spot where Ms Keith was speaking. When the assault took place the perpetrators were standing approximately three feet above her. The blows were delivered with from behind with considerable force. There is video showing the blows being delivered to Ms Keith.

We are asking anyone with information on the identities of the assailants, photos or additional video of the attack to contact us at abookfair [at] yahoo.com. We will make the information available to Ms Keith.

Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair Organizing Group
by Steve
Thursday Mar 25th, 2010 4:55 PM
Keith has made some extreme statements. Many people who support her, who do not support her ideas and members of your community made some extreme statements in this thread.

The prank boosted sales of her book, significantly. She got an interview with the local news she might not have gotten before. There have also been youtube interviews and much free publicity on many blogs. She is completely unharmed.

If Keith does get their contact information it might be more appropriate for her to send them a "thank you" card considering how much she has benefited from the prank.

Given how much she benefited and the extremeism expressed here, can you offer any proof for your allegations?
by Hyperbole much?
Thursday Mar 25th, 2010 6:37 PM
This statement makes it sound like three heavy-weight professional wrestlers jumped from the ropes of the ring and pile-drived straight into her head with their elbows or knees. The description of pepper in the pie is also very overblown in the statement, as if the pie was an explosive chemical weapon that could have killed Keith or anyone that came within 10 yards of the podium. Remember that pepper is something people choose to eat every day, so it's not like someone getting pepper on their mouths would have been the equivalent of people kissing nuclear waste.

Groucho Marx could have written this statement: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/14/18640886.php?show_comments=1#18641103 and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/16/18641410.php

And the snitch call-out is just too much. It's now known that Keith herself is not an anarchist (she was heard saying, "I don't care about anarchists" after being pied, and a friend reported online since that she does not identify as such). She feels it is fully appropriate to call the police for a pieing (and yet encourages others to much more diabolically sabotage the electrical grid). Given all this, still the bookfair organizers feel it is entirely appropriate to make a snitch call-out so that Keith can be provided with information that will undoubtedly be provided to SFPD if not other law enforcement agencies and potentially lead to jail terms.

Maybe next year, after Keith has milked the entire low-carb fad diet circuit for what it's worth and she has helped send a few people to jail, bookfair organizers can invite her back as a welcomed anarchist ally and once again help her with sales of her poorly researched and factually flawed book.
by okey dokey
Thursday Mar 25th, 2010 9:03 PM
if you look at the video after reading about "blows" to her head, you'd expect her head to move slightly down or to the right when taking one of these "blows" from the first two pie people

but no that's not what you see. you see that the pies were actually released inches from her head, so the only "blows" are from the pies themselves flying through the air. they were not shot into her head with rockets, they were delivered as all pies always are. no hands ever made contact with her head, directly or indirectly

does the bookfair want to be known as liars just like Keith is known? apparently condemning the act itself was not good enough, just like Keith was telling people that her eyes were "puffy" days later even though we've all seen the picture of her face and eyes looking just fine within minutes of the pieing
by Steve
Friday Mar 26th, 2010 4:52 AM
"Joey Caine" may not even be a real name and s/he may not even be a "Book Fair Organizer".

If earlier comments from anarchists in this thread are to be taken at face value, anarchists don't call the police. Yet, "Joey" comes off like an angry mother all ready to call in the school principal.

Some statements from "Joey" the anarchist book fair organizer also don't add up either

1) The three pies used to assault Ms Keith were in fact filled with red hot sauce and cayenne pepper. There was so much in the “pies” that you could smell the pepper sauce in the area of the speaker’s podium after the attack.

Here is a video of the prank. The pies were white. If the pies have as much hot sauce in that the sauce could be smelled on the podium, would the pies be white? Do not red and white make pink?

the video of the prank

I've gotten specs of cayenne in my eyes from my fingertips accidentally while cooking. I could NOT remove my hands from my eyes. If you watch the video Keith doesn't put her hands to her eyes. She just stands there.

Lastly, if she there was so much hot sauce that "you could smell the pepper sauce" wouldn't her eyes be red or puffy afterwards?

Yet, this picture of her afterwards, taken from earlier in this thread from indymedia, clearly shows Keith uninjured, undistressed, no red eyes, no puffiness about to enjoy increased book sales and free publicity :

lierrekeithpostpienoredness.jpg

Given what "Joey" wrote about the pranksters knowing enough about the building to come in the back it seems like these pranksters are part of the anarchist community. Who else could "case out" a building and make plans like that?

Maybe Keith arranged it herself given the improved sales of her book, the incredible free publicity and that she is completely unharmed.

Maybe "Joey" is really Keith. I can't seem the organizers bothering to post in this thread, let alone at this late date.

Anybody can claim anything on the internet.

by Steve
Friday Mar 26th, 2010 5:34 AM
For the sake of perspective here is a picture of a pepper spray victim:

ps2.jpg

Here is a picture of Keith after being humiliated by having a pie smooshed on top of her head:

lierrekeithpostpienoredness.jpg

The allegation from someone claiming to be an anarchist fair book organizer is that there was so much hot sauce in the pies that it could be smelled on the podium afterwards.

by Steve
Friday Mar 26th, 2010 6:39 AM
An earlier comment in this thread

Thanks, vegans!
by Omnivore
Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:59 PM
Her amazon.com ranking has gone from 4500 to 486 in the past few days. Think I'll buy a few more copies to celebrate!

I'm a life long book lover and I have been a serious fan of some books, but I didn't even know that Amazon had a sales ranking figure listed for each book until Keith got pied. Who else besides an author would know how well a book is selling before an event ( especially one with a publicity stunt that boosted book sales?) ?

Writers will read almost anything written about them and their work. I've known a few authors.

It is quite possible that Keith is contributing some of the comments to this thread.

by profits through the roof
Friday Mar 26th, 2010 10:40 PM
fatheadloveslierre.jpg
fatheadloveslierre.jpg

from Fat Head low-carb website:

Lierre Keith left a comment on Monday’s post. Since not everyone reads all the comments, I’ve pasted it below:

Tom, your post made me laugh, and that’s a very good thing right now. And I want to thank all of you for your support and outrage on my behalf. It helps to counterbalance the people who are celebrating that I was assaulted.

The people who assaulted me were definitely vegans–they shouted “Go vegan!” and “Don’t eat meat!” as they hit me. The irony for me was that the attack came at the exact moment in my speech when I was saying, “You shouldn’t eat factory-farmed meat. Anyone with a pulse, let alone a conscience, should agree.”

But they aren’t going to stop me from speaking. I will just be doing it with security from now on. I’ve also been flooded with literally hundreds of emails of support from people all around the world, more than I can answer. That really helps. And the silver lining in the cayenne cloud is that my book went from 4500 on amazon to 1503 yesterday. As one of my friends said, “You know those stupid little f*cks have just sold the entire 4th printing for you?” If they wanted to shut me up, they’ve had the opposite effect on every level.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/03/17/mini-post-a-note-from-lierre-keith/
by Steve
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 6:32 AM
The last comment is kind of ironic. Earlier comments from people who know Keith painted her as writing this book because she cares about the world. If that were true she could have just as easily published it as a PDF free for downloading.
by Michael
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 7:01 AM
Amazingly enough, even authors have to pay rent and buy food etc...

Some people don't seem to understand this.

by from facebook
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 2:47 PM
http://i.imgur.com/c2kEQ.jpg
by Michael
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 3:49 PM
Jealous much?
by Steve
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 5:32 PM

"Michael", you sound like someone who is very invested in while not being the author yourself.
by nowhere@nowhere.com
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 5:53 PM
by from facebook Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 2:47 PM http://i.imgur.com/c2kEQ.jpg

Sounds bitter, but to be fair, if I got publicly humiliated I would be too.

I'm guessing her FB page is a public one, for anyone to join, but I don't how I feel about people lifting content from it.

I think this whole thing does reflect that you reap what you sow. You invest in hate, you get some back and then you generate more hate from the blow back you receive. Blech.

On the upside the ranking of her book is starting to fall again. It is back down to around 1700.

My wish would be for the prank to never have happened. Aside from being juvenile, and profitable to Keith, it interfered with people saying what they wanted to say. If I went to the trouble and expense to hear a speaker I would be pissed if somebody else put a stop to it.

I'm also a big fan of debate and letting the truth take care of itself.

People who have the educations, training and experience to write on the subjects Keith wrote about, who does not have those things, significantly disagree with her.

Smooshing pies on top of her head were not necessary.

by Michael
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 6:23 PM
Invested? Not as much as you obviously. You're the one looking for more "dirt" as in searching her Facebook page.

I just enjoy pointing out the idiocy of people like you who could be using their energy to do something worthwhile, instead of hating on someone who probably shares more of your views then not. I have no problem with disagreement and dissent, but "pieing" someone from behind, in masks, and running away like little cowards is bullshit.
by Steve
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 7:13 PM
Welcome to indaybay.org Lierre.
by Michael
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 7:38 PM
Yah I'm Lierre, you found me out! It must be th*t *m*zing veg*n diet th*t m*kes you so sm*rt.

(Not sure why your'e so butthurt over this incident, maybe you were one of the masked cowards?)
by Steve
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 8:28 PM
I'm not one of the pranksters. You don't have to read far up in the comments to see that I disapprove of the prank. I also live on the east coast.

You use of the term "coward" is a bit odd. Did you expect the pranksters to stand still after the smooshed the pie on top of your head?

I find the level of investment and anger in your posts telling. It has been 10 days, even Keith's friends and fervent supports have since packed up. Yet you write as if this was a fresh wound, as only an author continuing to read about her book would.

My advice?

You haven't been hurt in any way, in fact you've gained from it. Stop listening to vegans, stop hating on them, get your mind out of that place and look for your next project.

by Michael
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 9:06 PM
The act itself is cowardly. I gain nothing, apparently you still think I'm the author. I'm just trolling for idiots, and I caught a big one.
You people are petty, as if forsaking meat will make the world a better place. Those pointy 4 teeth are canines, not meant for chewing cud.

Bye!
by hmmm
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 10:34 PM

And Lierre, when are you going to stop lying about tryptophan? When are you going to fess up to the other falsehoods in your books and interviews? Or is making money by selling people back their own unfounded prejudices against veg*ns what you are really all about?
by Steve
Saturday Mar 27th, 2010 10:44 PM

I thought this was a slick way of putting it:

" making money by selling people back their own unfounded prejudices "

Those facebook quotes are old.

If you go look up her book on amazon it sank down to a ranking of about 1700.
Copy the following to embed the movie into another web page:
download video:

lierrekiethtellstryptophanlies.mp4 (5.6MB)

here's some video of her lying about tryptophan after the pieing, from http://cbs5.com/video/?id=63173

allow me to transcribe her BS on CBS for the permanent record...

Liar Keith: "This was absolutely a sadistic attack.... If you don't have enough tryptophan, you're brain cannot produce serotonin. We all know that serotonin is absolutely crucial for a happy stable mood, and there are no good plant sources of tryptophan, and this is why the vegan community is just overwhelmed with people who feel depressed and angry all the time.... You see this phenomenon throughout the last, across history where radical movements tend to eat their own."


never mind as far as movements eating their own, that she obviously lobbed the first stone by attacking ALL vegetarians so prominently and dishonestly in her book -- she is obviously the one with an axe to grind, or her book would have just been about industrial agriculture.

never mind that vegans certainly did not invent depression and anger, or that there is simply no scientific evidence of vegans communities being "overwhelmed" with depression and anger -- it's just her same sloppy mix of pseudo-science and personal anecdote as in her book, pawned off as some sort of all-knowing perspective.

never mind that every description she has given of the pieing is completely overblown (sadistic? as in extreme cruelty? c'mon, Liar), especially when you can clearly see from the photographs posted above that she was absolutely fine within 15 minutes of being pied. humiliating? sure. devastatingly cruel? uh, not quite.

and with how eager she has been to play up her victimhood to the umpteenth from the very very beginning, and how committed to selling books she apparently is, one has to wonder if the pieing wasn't a stunt set up by Liar herself. but never mind that for now, let's look more closely at her constant, mean-spirited, and dishonest tryptophan lies

below are just some of the tryptophan food sources listed at wikipedia. see any vegetarian or vegan sources in there?


Tryptophan is a routine constituent of most protein-based foods or dietary proteins. It is particularly plentiful in chocolate, oats, durians, mangoes, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, fish, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, spirulina, and peanuts.[15] Despite popular belief to the contrary, the level found in turkey is at a level typical of poultry in general.[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryptophan#Dietary_sources


here's another passage that Liar's low-carb flock may not want to hear, and no doubt Keith will never mention as she continues to peddle her vegan-hating tryptophan myth...


In humans serotonin levels are affected by diet. An increase in the ratio of tryptophan to phenylalanine and leucine will increase serotonin levels. Fruits with a good ratio include dates, papaya and banana. Foods with a lower ratio inhibit the production of serotonin. These include whole wheat and rye bread.[13] Research also suggests that eating a diet rich in whole grain carbohydrates and low in protein will increase serotonin by secreting insulin, which helps in amino acid competition.[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin#Effects_of_food_content


all one has to do is the most basic of their own research to realize what a load of crap Liar is selling, literally selling, the public.

so Liar Keith is not just saying she's found another way to eat besides vegan that she thinks is good. she's saying that vegans are mentally unstable. she's basing this on the lie that vegans and vegetarians don't get tryptophan in their diets without any scientific basis or understanding of how tryptophan works. PM Press is enabling her to peddle these lies. Bound Together holds her up as an authority deserving of being taken seriously.

it's such a farce, all around
by that guy
Sunday Mar 28th, 2010 2:07 PM
Those pies were made with cayenne pepper and hot sauce. Cayenne pepper is also used to make pepper spray. What if Lierre Keith was pepper sprayed? Is that acceptable protest to pepper spray someone while they are making a speech because you don't agree with their view point, wether it is wrong or right ? What if hot peppers such as cayenne was rubbed into her eyes directly while she was making the speech? Because that is basically what happened and I think that it is bascially an act of violence and not a 'symbolic pieing' as the author of this piece refers to it as. It is not cool when you use violence and hurt someone because you disagree with what they are talking about. I necessarily might not agree with what Keith was speaking of or has written, but never to the point where I would slam peppers into her face, knowing that she would be burned; that is exreme and the people who have done it are extremeists! Violence is not the answer when you don't agree with someone's point of view, bottom line! Pieing is symbolic, not violent, and usually reserved for the worst offenders who have committed crimes in our society but hide behind a veitl of legitmacy like sitting in office or being established. Lierre Keith, even though controversial in her view points, has not comitted those crimes just because she has those controversial points of view. She did not deserve to get pied with those peppers. It was violent and the people who did it have shown that they are violent and extreme when it comes to others that they don't agree with. Their action does not speak for me!
by C. D. Bales
Sunday Mar 28th, 2010 3:33 PM
I didn't attend the talk as I had no interest in what she has to say (I've skimmed the book, it's awful).

I went in because I heard a commotion.

People were standing around arguing with each other. Someone told me that Kieth had been hit with pies that had pepper in them. I went up near the front and there was white stuff around the podium and on the floor. I have a really sensitive nose and I did NOT smell cayenne or hot pepper.

Where's the evidence?
by Steve
Sunday Mar 28th, 2010 5:04 PM
Picture of a pepper spray victim:

ps2.jpg

Picture of Keith after getting pied, no visible trauma:

lierrekeithpostpienoredness.jpg

Red and white make pink. If hot sauce was mixed in with the pies, why were the pies white?

by David
Sunday Mar 28th, 2010 9:02 PM
I heard there was quite a debate here about Lierre being pied.

I'm the guy who chased after the pie-ers, and approached Lierre right after the incident, so was right there from the beginning, and saw it all up close. So I wanted to clear up some misinformation about it.

(I have no connection with the organizers of the book fair and have not been in contact with them. I did have a vendor table at the fair. I am reading Lierre's book, and do not yet have an opinion in support or opposition to her views. I will need to read and understand her book, and learn more about the issues in question before I can have an informed opinion on this.)

I couldn't catch any of the pie-ers because I was sitting on the floor and couldn't get up in time (if I was twenty years younger maybe I'd have been quicker). This was just an automatic reaction on my part - see someone attacked, chase attackers. I didn't have time to think.

In a few seconds it was obvious I couldn't catch them, so I went over to Lierre to ask if she was ok. She said "No, my eyes are burning, there was hot sauce in the pies!" (this is my best recollection - this exchange was not intelligible on the recording).

She was very upset and a nice woman from the audience helped her to the bathroom to clean up.

I was right there and got a good look at the remains of the pie (both on her face, and on the floor), and it did indeed have hot sauce in it - the white filling was full of thick red streaks that were obviously hot sauce. So let's put the rumor that it had no hot sauce to rest. It DID have hot sauce, no question about it.

This was an open public event, so obviously there were many vegans and non-anarchists present, but for the rest of that day and all day Sunday I was approached by many people who are anarchists, and who voiced opposition to the act of silencing another person. Of the many people I talked with only two small groups totaling 5 people supported the pieing - three folks at the In Defense of Animals table, and two young men attending the fair who made the absurd claim that "Anarchists don't support freedom of speech." This claim is untrue, by definition. Both of these groups claimed that certain kinds of speech are "oppressive" and therefore may be silenced.

The act of silencing another is outside the boundaries of anarchism. By definition - Anarchism: The rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority.

So let's put that to rest, too - anarchists do not silence others.

If you silence others, if you coerce others, you need to call yourself something else.

There are many types of speech in the world, and many things are said or written that may offend us. Silencing the speaker is not a productive action, and does not make sense. If you silence another, you have with that act given others permission to silence you in return.

If you silence those you disagree with, how will you learn and understand their claims and arguments? If you do not know or understand their arguments, how will you effectively refute them? How will you engage them in conversation and perhaps help them to understand their errors, and perhaps change their views?

Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just those you agree with.

Silencing someone does not convince those who were listening to that person of the correctness of your own views.

Freedom means that you can say and do what you want to say and do. It also means that people you don't like can say and do things that you don't like. That's just part of the deal.

If you silence others, if you coerce others, then you yourself are not free, because you have created a world of coercion. With those acts you state that coercion and law are justified, and therefore coercion may be applied to you in return. Coercion is a self-destructive act.

If you silence others, in the end you only silence yourself.

"But what about racists? What about someone advocating violence? Don't we have a right to silence someone who is calling others to an act of violence?" This was an argument made by those at the animal-rights table. They stated that it was ok to use violence to stop other violence. I picked up one of their pamphlets which was a list of laboratories doing animal experimentation, and pointed out that by their own logic, that pamphlet could then be supressed as being a call for violence against those laboratories.

I am also struck by the number of posts here that attack others on the basis of gender, race, and class. It is no wonder that there is no effective opposition to current power structures - those who oppose them are too busy taking shots at each other. Those in power have very effectively neutralized us by setting us against each other. The politics of fragmentation. Those in power have learned well our weak points.

I appeal to you - please do not silence others. Please do not coerce others. Please do not set us against each other.

--David
by C. D. Bales
Monday Mar 29th, 2010 1:09 AM
You say you're reading the book but haven't "evaluated" it? That's odd because there's really nothing to evaluate at the start of the book; she just rants and spews about what she claims vegans think, and insults us. The pseudoscience part doesn't come until later in the book, and that's where "evaluation" might come into play.

As for the presence or absence of hot pepper sauce, I didn't see or smell any and the YouTube video doesn't show any.

Not one person in the room had a camera or cellphone to take a photo of the pies? Was it really a room full of primitivists or anti-civs or some other cellphone-shunning faction? Again, where's the evidence?
by Steve
Monday Mar 29th, 2010 4:18 AM

"So let's put that to rest, too - anarchists do not silence others. "

David, that quote of yours is not quite true. I have been following this thread for a while. Two posts by someone ("Old Punk") who *politely* criticized anarchists were deleted from this thread. I read the posts when they were posted and I saw them disappear.

Is it possible that Keiths eyes were "burning" from just having *anything* get in her eyes? Maybe the red sauce was some other pie ingredient?

I bring up the point because in a few comments up is a picture of a pepper spray victim with red skin around his eyes and a picture of Keith with a clear, trauma free face.

Keith has motivations of book sales and free publicity to lie. Indeed, she has bragged about a jump in book sales.


by David
Monday Mar 29th, 2010 11:26 AM
Many people call themselves anarchists. Anarchism is often colonized by other ideologies. I encounter Marxists, Libertarians, and people with other authoritarian ideologies who call themselves anarchists.

Saying "I'm an anarchist" does not make one an anarchist.

For language to be useful for communication, words must have meaning. Otherwise we are in the Orwellian situation found in his novel "1984", where war is peace, slavery is freedom. The destruction of the meaning of words is one of the most powerful tools used by governments, corporations, and other systems of control. Let's not let them destroy our principles and philosophy by redefining us.

By definition there are no four-sided triangles. You can call a square a triangle, but that does not make it a triangle. A square is outside the definition of a triangle. A square is not a triangle. That's just the way it is.

Up is over your head, down is where your feet stick to the ground. That's just the way it is.

A person who coerces others, who silences others by acts of physical force, is not an anarchist. That person is outside of the definition of anarchist in the same way that a square is outside the definition of a triangle. If the policeman with his billy-club says "I'm an anarchist.", does that make it so?

Anarchists do not silence others. Someone who silences others is, by definition, not an anarchist. That's just the way it is.

Freedom of speech is for everyone. When you silence someone, you only end up silencing yourself. When you take someone's freedom, you only take away your own freedom.

That's just the way it is.
by or up?
Monday Mar 29th, 2010 1:23 PM
You can type a thousand words about freedom of speech, over and over, but that doesn't make them any more true, doesn't make it "the way it is." Anarchism is not a triangle no matter how much it might help you sleep at night to reduce the world to geometry.

Anarchism is not necessary opposed to the use of violence or force to coerce. Not even sure where or how you came to believe that so firmly. Ward Churchill has called such advocacy pathological.

The anarchists in Greece have been quite successful at pushing back against police with force, with molotovs, rocks, sticks, whatever they have at hand. (That's "violence" - pieing is laughably exaggerated to be in the same ballpark.) These means are how Greeks have created numerous anarchist spaces. The Greeks who came through the bookfair said they believe in not jailing rapists but beating them up and dealing with them in other socially punitive means.

Also, note that Lierre is not an anarchist, not by her actions nor by what she claims of herself. She yelled out to call the police after the pieing. Do you support her call for jailing, fining, whatever by the state to punish pie-ers?

Would you be so interested in protecting Lierre's "rights" if her book had been called "The Anarchist Myth" - full of attacks on anarchists based on personal grudges and factually incorrect pseudo-science - and then was invited to speak as some sort of authority on the subject at the bookfair?
by Steve
Monday Mar 29th, 2010 2:10 PM
Lets cut the bullshit.

1. Keith wrote a book about how current agricultural and related practices are not sustainable. She did not need to write about veganism to make her main points. She likely did so to indulge some angst.

2. Smooshing pies on her head was a reaction to #1. It was also an indulgence.

3. #2 was stupid and unethical thing to do. Yes I'm a vegan.

4. Keith has a liberal arts background with no education in what she writes about.

5. As a result of # 4 her book is full of errors. Even positive reviews on Amazon point this out.

6. The positive reviews for a nonfiction book that gets facts wrong is a contradiction.

7. #6 is possible because Keith is telling meat lovers and vegan haters what they want to hear.

8. People not talking about the lack of evidence for the pie allegedly having hot sauce in is from #7

I don't know anything about the anarchist, anti-civilization or primativist communities.

Every group that is about something has immature and angry individuals.

I have been a vegan for over 15 years. I know that community. It is diverse. It has people of all ages, all economic background, all education levels and is geographically diverse.

Trying to paint vegans with one brush, as mask wearing pie throwers is pure bullshit, see numbers 1 - 8.

People are still pushing 1 - 8 so they can find a rationalization for hurting animals and the planet for no other reason than a taste preference.





by margo
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 3:38 AM
I hear these references vegans tend to throw around to "factually incorrect pseudoscience" all the time. But I'm sceptical, because vegans tend to throw around a lot of their own "pseudoscience," and unfortunately, the American clinical medical establishment has helped them out, by producing a lot of industrial propaganda, for decades, touting the wonders of "polyunsaturated vegetable oil" and "low fat diets" and all things vegetarian. American doctors have been backing themselves onto a corporate-friendly food industry ledge for decades, and now that the evidence from lipid biochemists has started to become overwhelming, they've been forced to figure out how to slowly and safely climb back down. Their first step came around 2002, when all the major establishment organizations admitted that "trans fat from partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is worse than saturated fat" (almost all vegetable oil produced in the US until quite recently was partially hydrogenated). And pretty soon, they're going to have to admit that they had the whole saturated fat thing wrong altogether. That day will be a painful blow to political veganism, since the article of medical faith about the evils of saturated fat (usually meaning animal fat) has been such a huge boon to vegan health claims.
(http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html)

And when the old "lipid hypothesis" goes out the window altogether, which is just a matter of time, maybe ten years give or take a few, then things will just get uglier and uglier for the whole "vegetarianism next to health-godliness" business altogether. Because people will want to know what is really causing heart disease and systemic inflammatory disorders. And the leading contender at this point is omega 6/3 imbalance. And that is a result of eating excessive amounts of processed foods, containing excessive polyunsaturated (vegetable) oils. And among the best antidotes, it will soon (and is already) coming to light, is to reduce consumption of these vegetable oils, and increase consumption of traditional foods, including traditional (grassfed) animal products, and also including wild-caught fish.

(For a sample shot across the bow from the aforementioned lipid biochemists, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177743)
by well
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 9:29 AM
you didn't really make a case against vegetarianism

you made a case against processed foods and hydrogenated oils

who do you think in general eats the most processed foods and who do you think eats the most whole foods? while it's only anecdotal, I'd say that the vegetarians I know pay much more attention to what they eat than most of my meat-eating friends, and your points about oils are not exactly "news". some countries now have outright bans on transfat

and while you might enjoy your privileged diet of grass-fed meat, that's not a practical or affordable solution for everyone. there is simply not enough grass and not enough land to provide grass-fed meat to everyone at the large amounts of meat eaten by most Americans today. veg or not veg, everyone has to seriously limit the amount of meat and dairy they eat (i.e. not more than a few times a week, versus the current 3 times a day). the current situation is not sustainable ecologically

by Steve
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 10:22 AM
@Margo

Lierre Keith is a writer. Her background is in the liberal arts. Even positive reviews of her book on Amazon criticized her for getting facts wrong.

Education counts.



I recently read a book about the famous "China Study"

The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.

Dr. Campbell is a scientist who has done human nutrition research for 50 years, a career that has lasted longer than I or Lierre Kieth has been alive. Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

I recently read a book called "The China Study" which has incredible credentials behind it.

The top killers of Americans are cardiovascular disease and cancer. The message of the book is that the more animal products people eat the more likely they are to die from these top killers.

The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine. It is the legacy of Dr. T. Colin Campbell.

Dr. Campbell is a scientist who has done human nutrition research for 50 years, a career that has lasted longer than I or Lierre Kieth has been alive. Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

If you you really want to get away from psuedoscience check a copy of "The China Study" out of your local library.

by Margo
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 1:03 PM
Sure, you *COULD* eat a diet of whole foods and thereby hopefully enjoy good health as a result, but in my experience, vegetarians are no more likely to do so than the next guy. They afterall are subject to the same social economic pressures as everybody else, and the path of least resistance is to go buy some packaged prepared stuff from trader joes, often loaded with refined vegetable oils and or corn syrup, and kid yourself that "it must be healthy: it's all vegan!"

As for Campbells China Study, this hobby horse invariably gets reverentially rolled out nowadays when these discussions happen. The trouble is, the kind of sweeping conclusions about animal products that he makes in his books of the same name directed towards lay people are nowhere to be found in his actual peer reviewed publications, because they'd never pass muster with his disinterested academic colleagues. Rather, they are a dubious product of his own personal vegan enthusiasms. (See http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html
for a critique of Campbell at length on this score.)
by Margo
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 1:26 PM
As for grass fed meat products...

The reason there's "not enough" is because of the rise of a pervasive bourgeois festidiousness in this country when it comes to what are considered acceptable cuts. That is an artificial byproduct of factory farming. Our ancestors used every little bit of the animals they raised, and were not above eating organs, tongues, tails, etc etc-- which it turns out offers a lot more nutrition than eating a bunch of muscle tissues.

For a great little piece on this subject, see "Why cooking matters," Dan Barber, The Nation, Sep 2009 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/barber#article-also)
by Steve
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 4:48 PM
Margo;

Credentials count. Dr. Campbell has them, the author of your link doesn't have comparable credentials. Dr. Campbell also has an article debunking criticisms from the pro-cholesterol diet fad diet authors.

If you are going to take the word of a fad diet book author or a 1 book author with a liberal arts background over one of the countries leading research scientists I can only conclude you don't have an open mind.
by Margo
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 6:38 PM
Ok then, so please how come the extremely bold and sweeping statements that the impressively credentialed Campbell makes claiming all meat consumption across the board is the biggest risk factor for cancer never appear in any of his peer reviewed publications, only in polemics for vegan ideologues? You expect me to just ignore that not so little detail and just rely on armwaving gestures pointing out someone's laurels? How does that constitute critical thinking?
You don't get a free pass on any statements you make just by pointing to your list of titles, but that always seems to be Campbells fallback position when he gets called on any of his dubious non-peer-reviewed dicta.
by Jennifer
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 7:50 PM
So, let's be clear, we're talking about rubbing cayenne pepper in someone's eyes and ears here, along with some other as-yet-unindentified caustic substance. I am really shocked that so many people here seem to think that was OK. Do you really think that anyone who disagrees with another person has the right to rub red pepper into that person's eyes? Do you think someone has the right to rub cayenne pepper into YOUR eyes if that person disagrees with you?

Gloating over this is simply sick.

I heard about this incident a few days ago. It prompted me to take a look at the book. Although I think she sounds a little wacky in many ways, she also makes some interesting points. Other things I wanted to check out for myself, so I bought the book. So that's at least one copy that would not have been sold if not for this sadistic incident. I don't know the woman but just for poetic justice I hope the attack causes many people to buy the book.
by Steve
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 5:19 AM
@Margo

Dr. T Colin Campbell was one of the top scientists in the country. He has been researching nutrition for 50 years. The China Study was the largest epidemiological human nutrition study in history. It involved Oxford, other Ivy Leauge schools and Chinese counterparts. It involved internation teams of researchers and thousands of people. The book has over 700 references in it, real references to real research.

The evidence is not easily summed in a box on the internet. That is one of the unfortunate characteristics of real arguments based on real information.

The book has been out for 4 years.

If you are sincere about learning and not just looking to be told what you want to hear, you can go to your library system and borrow a copy. You can also purchase a used copy at a discount on Amazon where the book is still rated at about 130 in its sales rank, even after 4 years.



by Steve
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 5:36 AM
@Jennifer

Nobody rubbed cayenne pepper into Keih's eyes. The pranksers smooshed pies on top of her head. I don't think anyone in this thread endorsed even that.

Here is a video of the incident, judge for yourself
Keith gets pies put on top of her head

Red and white make pink. If you notice the pies were white. There have been allegations that there was hot sauce mixed into the pies. So much, that the hot sauce could be smelled afterwards. If that were true, how would the pies remain white if the pies had that much hot sauce mixed into them?

Keith was also completely unharmed by the event and there are other reasons to believe that she fabricated the allegation that the pies had any kind of irritant in them.

This is a picture of an actual pepper spray victim:

ps2.jpg

This is a picture of Keith after the prank, with no visible trauma:

lierrekeithpostpienoredness.jpg

If you scroll up in the comments you will find accounts of Keith bragging about how the incident boosted the sales of her book. It also got her much blog publicity, interviews on youtube and even an interview on the local news.

I think it is possible she either planned for this to happen or was thinking fast enough to add her own fabrication to this juvenile prank for her own material gain.

For what it is worth I condemn the prank and I don't think I've read one comment on any site endorsing it.

by Steve
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 6:04 AM
by Margo
Thursday Apr 1st, 2010 6:38 PM

Ok then, so please how come the extremely bold and sweeping statements that the impressively credentialed Campbell makes claiming all meat consumption across the board is the biggest risk factor for cancer never appear in any of his peer reviewed publications, only in polemics for vegan ideologues? You expect me to just ignore that not so little detail and just rely on armwaving gestures pointing out someone's laurels? How does that constitute critical thinking? You don't get a free pass on any statements you make just by pointing to your list of titles, but that always seems to be Campbells fallback position when he gets called on any of his dubious non-peer-reviewed dicta.

I don't think you actually read what I had to write about the superior credentials of The China Study and Dr. T Colin Campbell, because your comment quoted above is asking for something that my statement gave you.

Here it is again.

The China Study was the culmination of a 20 year partnership between Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine.

Dr. T Colin Campbell, the scientist who ran the study and the author of the book has been doing nutrition research for 50 years.

Dr. Campbell is a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. Dr. Campbell has received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding. He has authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research.

by Jennifer
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 1:18 PM
@Steve Thanks for that info, Steve - I hadn't heard there was controversy over the pepper part. However, the pie would certainly not have to be pink to be painful. I don't know if you've ever cooked with cayenne pepper, but it only takes a small amount to be very irritating. Even an invisible trace on the finger can hurt like hell if you accidentally rub your eyes with it.

It seems to me as though we need more information. There are possibly unfounded accusations going in both directions, unless you have evidence that she planned it.
by Steve
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 3:18 PM
@Jennifer.

I do indeed cook and I have gotten traces of cayenne pepper in my eyes. That is one of the reasons why I don't believe Keith. When that has happened to me my eyes hurt so bad I couldn't keep my hands away from my eyes. In the video, after the pies are broken on top of her head ( not her face ) Keith stands there stunned, with hands held out.....not in her eyes.

As I wrote in my comment showing the photos of Keith being trauma free, at least 2-3 people have posted comments claiming to have been at the event, claiming that hot sauce ( not just peppper) was in the pies and there was enough hot sauce in the pies that it could be easily smelled.

That much hot sauce would turn otherwise white pies pink.

My personal opinion is that Keith did not stage the prank ( which I do not endorse), but maybe panicked when she got "creme" in her eyes, blurted out something about her eyes hurting because of the shock of the surprise and kept lying about it once she saw how good it was for her book sales.
by Margo
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 6:28 PM
Steve: I don't think you read my question carefully enough, and I don't think you understand that there are multiple different publications that have been produced by the Campbell father-son team, all of which bear titles or get commonly referred to with names containing the words "China Study", but only SOME of which are peer-reviewed academic works that have withstood vetting by the Campbell's disinterested academic colleagues, but OTHERS of which (by far the better known and more widely read) are works published in book form and directed towards a lay audience.

What they have been taken to task for is publishing very emphatic, sweeping statements about such questions as the etiology of all cancers, and claiming that meat consumption is the best predictor for them across the board, but never publishing such statements in the context of the PEER-REVIEWED articles associated with their actual research, where their peers would have the opportunity to decide whether the research results they've produced actually support such sweeping statements. They issue DICTA to lay people that "these conclusions are supported by our research," but there is a considerable leap of faith involved there, especially given the lack of academic review of those conclusions.

The question then is, if they are so confident that their published research results so unambiguously support their bold statements in their popular books, then WHY would they only print these statements in the popular books published for lay people, and not invite their colleagues to critique and possibly challenge them, by also printing such statements in their peer reviewed publications (that no so coincidentally are referred to by the same name, being no doubt what is occasioning confusion over the matter among laypeople like yourself)??? Why don't you find that question the least bit curious, assuming you really have a disinterested curiosity about nutrition, as opposed to a mainly political agenda?
you seem to have forgotten the actual topic of this thread is Liar Keith, her shoddy book, and the pieing

what say you on Liar's logical and factual errors, psuedo-science, and personal grudges?

and sorry but you attacks on the various iterations of the China Study are falling flat

the only science you've brought to the table her are that processed foods and transfat are bad. well, thanks for nothing. that's not news
by margo
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 9:48 PM
I hear all these references to "pseudoscience," and what I've brought to the table, specifically, is references to pseudoscience and dubious nonsequiturs that politically motivated vegetarianism propagandists espouse. That's because I've READ their stuff, and have also read critiques of it as well. But Lierre Keith? Haven't read her book, only what others have said about it. I think I have a pretty good idea already what she has to say, based on the reviews, and few of her observations are original, as far as I can tell. Hence the reason I haven't yet bothered to go out and get her book.

So, I have to rely on the sage criticisms of all you folks who have actually read her book. Unfortunately,
in the comments above, I'm only able to note just two or three specific debatable bones people have picked with her facts. One is the comment by "check this" taking issue with her remarks that dietary fat consumption has decreased in the past several decades. He says it's the best and most favorite thing he has to fling at her, so I'll take his word for that and just stick with the following critique for analysis purposes:

The commenter notes that the absolute dietary fat levels actually increased, though consumption of fat as a percentage of calories (in particular fat from animal sources) decreased.To call this a distortion or "falsehood" on Keith's part seems pretty wide of the mark, at best it's an imprecision. It's especially not-damning considering that, if she had told the whole story with greater precision, the conclusions would actually have been even more unfavorable for vegetarianism, not less!

The more precise description of the dietary fat trend has been a high rate of increase in the consumption of fats from refined vegetable oils, and a relative fall in that from red meat and animal products generally. That is very crucial information, because it strongly corroborates what lipid biochemists like Bill Lands have been saying about the underlying inflammatory cascade process fueling most degenerative diseases like coronary artery disease.

The reason all of this is, for practical purposes, a very bad thing indeed for vegetarian propaganda, is NOT because you can't eat a vegetarian diet and steer free-and-clear of this problem. Of course you can! The problem is that, as I've said, most people DON'T and WON'T, under the influence of a medical establishment that tells them "cut back on saturated fat!", together with vegetarian propagandists who happily parrot the same nonsense, because in their minds it will mean fewer dead cows, and if it comes down to a decision between the truth, or the dead cows, they probably care more about the cows than the truth.

Most people, whether vegetarians, or non-vegetarians who still care about their health, are still going to go to Trader Joes and buy the "vegan-organic-vegetable oil-corn-syrup"-laden processed prepared food items, because it's fast and convenient, and the junk-food convenience culture in this country is run-amok, and parents don't have enough time to prepare real food for their kids, and don't get adequate paid time off, and on and on, for any of numerous social reasons characteristic of this country, to a far greater degree than countries like, say, France.
by mkay
Friday Apr 2nd, 2010 10:16 PM
and some sort of sideways conflating of vegetarians and popular food culture

you're still really off topic here. this is not a health-nut thread or website. the issues are Liar's false attacks on vegetarians and her getting pied

for more on Keith's falsehoods and bad science, see http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/18641159.php
by margo
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 12:57 AM
The point that I'm trying to make is that VEGETARIAN DOES NOT EQUAL HEALTHY. I don't think there's any way that I'm likely to be able to get this point through to people who are basically religiously devoted to this ideology, but to those out there who aren't, the point bears a great deal of repeating, which is why I feel like I'm not necessarily wasting my breath here.

Repeat: vegetarianism and good health are what in statistical terms would be called "orthogonal" variables, ie, any correlation between them is ACCIDENTAL, not causal. Meaning, for example, that it is perfectly possible to eat a vegetarian diet and suffer horrible health. Plenty of people do! It is also perfectly possible to eat a variety of animal products, and enjoy excellent health. Again, plenty of people do that, too. And meaning, furthermore, and more importantly, that one's choice on this score doesn't even make one or the other outcome more likely! That is actually the key point that needs to be made. Things are simply far more complicated, and people who care about their health simply have to delve a little bit into these complications.

What I'm saying is, if you adjust for all confounding variables, such as income, education, smoking, etc, etc, I think you will find that any correlations between health and vegetarianism become statistically insignificant. This, naturally, is a very bitter and totally unpalatable pill for politically motivated ideologues to swallow, especially after so many decades of propaganda by the clinical medical establishment itself. Naturally, I don't expect them to do so. I can debate back and forth with them here, probably endlessly. The important point for me, though, is not to convince them. Rather, it's for people who up until recently accepted unquestioningly (as I did myself until rather recently) the "Vegetarian Myth" as Keith quite aptly refers to it, to become apprised of this debate. Then, they can decide FOR THEMSELVES, with the full weight of the evidence and arguments at their disposal, where the truth lies.

For anyone who wants some good reads on this subject, there are innumerable ones to choose from in the blogosphere, many of which reference peer-reviewed research. Stephan Guyenet, a biochem postdoc at UW, runs wholehealthsource.blogspot.com, for example. Peter Dobromylskyj, another blogger with scientific training, runs high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com. Uffe Ravnskof is "infamous" in the medical establishment for casting grave doubts in multiple books and medical papers on the entire "lipid" (aka "diet-heart") hypothesis. He is also a highly regarded medical academic. He started "The International Network of Cholesterol Sceptics" (http://www.thincs.org). Weston Price Foundation, for all the withering criticism they often come under, has made some good and useful points, that even vegetarian critics like John Robbins have acknowledged (eg, http://www.westonaprice.org/Out-of-Africa-What-Dr.-Price-Dr.-Burkitt-Discovered-in-Their-Studies-of-Sub-Saharan-Tribes.html)

So, make up your own minds on this debate (for all those of you who haven't yet done so, that is!)
by margo
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 1:29 AM
I just read the little dissection someone posted of some alleged "falsehoods" by Lierre Keith (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/18641159.php?show_comments=1#18643137). One or two of the points there are actually fairly interesting and thought-provoking. I'd like to explore further the debate about the footprint occupied by Salatin-style polyculture vs. conventional monoculture, for example.

I'm not convinced, though, that any of these arguments really demonstrate gross sloppiness or bad faith on Keith's part. Some of them (like the second one) are highly subjective. Others (such as the issue of percentage fat consumption that I addressed above) would actually reflect even more unfavorably on ideological vegetarianism if Keith had elaborated on them with more precision, instead of the "distortion" she was accused of.

It would be nice, although maybe a fantasy, if more light than heat could actually flow eventually out of this discussion. I will continue to indulge that fantasy ;-)
by really invested in that, huh?
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 1:53 AM
let me enlighten you on something. most vegetarians do not become vegetarians because they are health nuts as you seem to be (or pretend to be, if you happen to be Liar here trying to dominate these threads). they do it to reduce or eliminate their role in factory farming (vegans not partaking in dairy). OR they do it to lighten their footprint on this earth. Keith's ecological arguments are based on a fantasy world were somehow we magically, or through genocide, go back to a few million of us on the earth and we hunt and gather for sustenance. her solution is not viable as a solution people across this country can do today to reduce their footprint, unless perhaps they cut their consumption of animal products down to nearly nothing rather than 3 times a day as most Americans eat now. veg or no veg, the only realistic solution people can embark on TODAY is to eat seriously less meat and dairy. in the meantime, until Keith's misanthropic dream world comes to be, over 95% of all meat and dairy will continue to come from factory farms. she says she's against them, but actively encourages people to continue eating animals without acknowledging the ecological necessity to consume less, and she mixes it all up with her confused understanding of her supposed ailment (an ailment that I've never heard of another vegan suffering from and I'd assume meat-eaters get as well, especially if the roots of it are genetic).

yes, meat-eaters can eat well-rounded diets and be relatively healthy. same for vegetarians and vegans. eating too much processed food is bad for anyone, no matter what you eat. BUT, the amounts of meat and dairy people consume today is NOT ecologically sustainable, and Keith's and your grass-fed prescription is false because that is a privileged diet that is not realistic for the masses. there's not enough grass or land for all of the food animals to eat so we can eat them at the rates we do today. no matter what, if this planet is to survive, people need to eat less meat. it's a terribly inefficient way to get nutrients. Keith blows that off in her objections to agriculture, but her hunter/gatherer plan only works in a world with millions and not billions of people

oh, and her book IS FILLED with bad faith arguments. and if she is supposedly making scientific arguments, why are there so many inaccuracies? she had an axe to grind and conveniently tried to use bad science to make her case. she continues to peddle the tryptophan myth in her attacks on vegetarians. that's just dead wrong, and yet another example of her bad faith in pretending to rationally explain her decision to eat animals again
by margo
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 2:46 AM
I'd like to point out something that people have to come to grips with here, which is the obvious emotional undertones of this debate. It is because we literally are what we eat, clearly our diets have enormous relevance to our health, so everyone has a stake in this discussion.

Personally, I think there's plenty of merit in vegetarianism, or at least, increased consumption of plant-based whole foods. At the same time, however, I think that one's personal health is paramount, because sustaining it is a precondition for leading a good life, and doing anything else positive in this world, whether that be protecting the environment for future generations, saving animals, helping other human beings, and so on.

The evidence is abundant that we are suffering a raft of serious health problems in this country that are highly diet correlated. So we have to know what mix of nutrients will help us protect our health, and where they should come from, regardless whether the sources turn out to be animal, vegetable, or mineral. And, I would argue secondarily, we need to know which of these sources will minimize our impact on the environment and other species. I don't believe there needs to be a serious conflict between these two considerations, though.

The subjects here are fraught with dangers, though, and something that vegetarianism proponents have to realize is that, if they aren't really rigorous with the truth, the consequences for their credibility are bound to be very negative, and the likelihood of even outright hostility and conflict with their fellow humans is also very real, if people come to believe that vegetarian propaganda is more about protecting animals than any concern for the health of humans. If these two come to be seen as being in conflict, than that does a world of harm for people's perception of vegetarianism, and creates really unnecessary conflicts and divisions. (The same surely applies, likewise, to the perception of the medical establishment, or corporate industry. But the difference there is, those entities are a lot better funded and insulated from the public's wrath!)

You can't deftly sidestep the anger that people are liable to feel if they decide that vegetarian propaganda has contributed to misleading them into health-damaging indulgence in processed foods, under the mistaken rationalization that "hey, its organic, its vegetarian, its even vegan!" It would be better to forthrightly acknowledge that we all have been laboring under a raft of misbegotten notions, vegetarians no less than everybody else, in letting our dietary decisions be guided by big industrial food manufacturers, and choosing "convenience" instead of locally grown, whole foods. A lot of people are still debating this subject, of course. There is a huge, ongoing debate between "locavorism" vs vegetarianism, for example.

The conclusion that I'm coming to is that whole, natural, minimally processed foods, as well as local food security, really should be paramount. I realize the point is still very controversial. But my argument for this approach is that, even if it is true in some isolated cases that food "globalization" offers efficiencies and can actually result, in some isolated cases, in overall reduced ecological footprint, it is nonetheless highly problematic, since it feeds into the existing pattern of unaccountable, big corporate middlemen, long logistical tails, brittle local monocultures, both ecological and economic, greater alienation from the natural world, widespread ignorance about a basic human necessity, and also, equally inevitably, bad dietary habits. I'm sceptical of the claims of "efficiencies" in food globalization that I've read about, such as the claim that it would be better for some people (eg, the British who eat grain-fed lamb) to import pasture-fed ones from New Zealand instead.

Sure, it could be true, but it's a pretty grotesque apple-and-oranges comparison, and even if it were apples-to-apples (eg, pasture-raised here vs. pasture-raised there), in principle, I would still rather buy a local, conscientiously produced product whose provenance and conditions of production I could inspect and verify for myself, rather than a distantly produced one about which I have no choice but to take the word of unseen and distant middlemen.

The argument for the principle of making whole foods paramount (as opposed to, say, whether they are animal, vegetable or mineral based) stems, once again, from the principle of cutting out the middleman and knowing exactly what we're getting. When we allow our food to become processed, adulterated, and commodified, then all kinds of mischief occurs. Once again, we become further alienated from our food, and from the natural environment from which it springs. I want my veggies even to still have a little bit of dirt on them sometimes! I believe that is actually important, for many reasons. (That dirt has minerals in it that I need, and equally significant, that dirt also helps remind me that this food comes from the Earth, a point of no small emotional importance.)

The vegetable oil example, here, is quite compelling, because here in Portland OR, where I live, I know plenty of vegans who won't eat any butter, and prefer to buy refined vegetable oil imported from half way around the world. I would argue to them, though, that both their health and the environment would ultimately benefit from their consuming a locally produced product like butter, which we can produce sustainably here from grass-fed cows, using very basic technology that has been around forever.
by Steve
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 5:18 AM
Margo;

Have you conducted a 20 year epidemiological study in a partnership with Cornell University, Oxford and The Chinese Academy Of Preventative Medicine? Dr. Campbell has.

Do you hold a Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University? Dr. Campbell does.

Have you received more than 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding? Dr. Campbell did.

Have you authored more than 300 research papers and received the Research Achievement Award in 1998 from the American Institute of Cancer Research? Dr. Cambell has.

Until you done those things and have at least read the over 700 references to research in his book your opinion, in my opinion is not equal to Dr. Campbell's opinion as expressed in his book "The China Study", which you haven't even read.

I don't even know your full name, much less your credentials.

Your opinion doesn't count any more than any other post from any other anonymous author on the internet.

by me again
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 5:21 AM
The tryptophan business in Keith's expositions is kind of strange, not sure why she chooses to focus on it. It kind of distracts and detracts from her arguments, which would be a lot more compelling if she would focus on some things that really are probably important for good mental and physical health AND really are hard to get enough of on a very strict vegan diet, such as the preformed omega 3 eicosanoids, DHA and EPA.

Not sure why she goofed on that one. Maybe carelessness? Don't know, again, haven't actually raad her book, only the critiques by vegans/vegetarians appearing here.
OK, Steve, have it your way. Don't listen to a word I say, but only the horse's mouth, Campbell Sr. himself. How about this: Pick up his published academic research ("Diet, life-style, and mortality in China: A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese counties"), and see if it is actually consistent with his popular books. What's to fear, afterall? Surely a man of Campbell's eminence wouldn't ever LIE, now would he???

http://www.anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html

Colpo is very harsh and undiplomatic in his critique, but still, his challenge to us all is pretty hard for a thinking person to reject, unless their commitment to veganism is basically a kind of religious fundamentalism. Personally I certainly plan on going to my local university library and taking a gander.
by me again
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 5:53 AM
Ah, should have said "eicosanoid precursors," to be exact. DHA and EPA are the "preformed" (ie, directly usable) molecules that the human body can convert into the large assortment of vital biochemical signalling molecules known as "eicosanoids," which are becoming a big topic of medical research for their connections to immune health, brain chemistry, inflammatory processes, etc. As a vegetarian, you can get them if you consume seed oils fortified with algae extracts. Damned expensive, though, and only available since quite recently. Otherwise, you're gonna get damned little, especially since the conversion rate from the much touted flax oil is extremely poor. And that COULD have some definite negative repercusssions for your mental and physical health. Look into it. Especially if you're expecting to get pregnant!
You just keep making excuse after excuse for her. Giving her the benefit of the doubt on her BAAAAD science.

Her lies are quite deliberate. She tells them in her book, she tells them on TV interviews. If she didn't tell them, her case against vegetarianism would fall apart.

She COULD have called her book "The Agriculture Myth" and would have had some valid points about industrial agriculture (which if done honestly would have to acknowledge that meat-eaters contribute much more to such ag via the clear ecological inefficiencies of an animal based diet), even if a fair amount of her understanding of science is actually a misunderstanding and permeating her entire anti-civ perspective is a disturbing misanthropy.

But instead she choose to wrap up her agricultural arguments with her own personal psychological issues and attack vegetarians in a very dishonest and disingenuous book.

Hence the pieing.

Now you can continue with your off-topic Weston Price cult rants about the joys of butter.
by Steve
Saturday Apr 3rd, 2010 3:55 PM

Margo, I would ask Calpo the same questions I asked you and I suspect he would have to answer "no" to many of them. With the book being out for 4 years Dr. Campbell has had time to write essays addressing his various critics. I've read a number of them. I'm not ready to sell the store.

FWIW, I think the fact that you and some others in this thread keep making attempts at justifications for your culinary choices, no matter how weak, to be positive signs about your character.

It shows that at some level you know the truth and more importantly, at some level you care.

People who were ignorant and people who truly didn't care wouldn't bother with the dime store arguments.

by margo
Sunday Apr 4th, 2010 1:38 PM
Steve, my concerns here center on the unnecessary suffering of well-meaning human beings who are at risk of blinding themselves to the truth by ideology. The kind of blindness I'm talking about can make enemies out of people who could and should be allies. I see it all the time.

Why not just take up Colpo's challenge by picking up Campbell's peer-reviewed book and puttling it alongside Campbell's popular books, and seeing if the former corroborates the latter?? That is not asking you to believe Colpo, or me. but rather, asking you to verify for yourself whether Campbell is consistent with Campbell. It has nothing whatever to do with Colpo, or his qualifications, or me, or my qualifications, or anybody else.

If what Colpo is saying is true, which would require only access to a university library to confirm or debunk, then it won't take any special expertise to perform this exercise.
by margo
Sunday Apr 4th, 2010 1:58 PM
People should realize here that someone like Lierre Keith could have a complex mix of motives, which need neither be 100% pure and altruistic nor angry and hostile. For example, she blames vegetarianism for damaging her health, whether rightly or wrongly. She is liable to feel anger about that, and might be liable to lash out at people she associates with an ideology that she blames for her problems. On the other hand, she might indeed have figured out a thing or two that has some merit and truth in it, and not all she has to say is necessarily some vicious and devious, hate-filled attack against vegetarians or vegetarianism.

The pattern that I see people engage in time and time again is: latch onto some ideology, for a variety of reasons, initially often noble, such as wishing to reduce suffering in the world, feel a greater sense of connection, protect the earth. But then, their ideology also becomes a form of identity. If anybody ever criticizes it, then this becomes a direct attack on them as persons, rather than a potential disinterested opportunity for attaining greater understanding. So then we all tend to fall into a sort of tribal warfare, very predictable behavior. The vegetarians/vegans/ar activists have their "tribe," the primitivists have theirs. But the truth is the truth, it is not "vegetarian," or "primitivist," or what have you.
by keith is margo
Sunday Apr 4th, 2010 9:44 PM
that's what I think

the arguments made here and elsewhere by the "two" are just too similar

the Weston Price references, the intense and inane rebellion against the China Study, all the jibber jabber about truth over ideology (as if keith/margo are supreme beings who objectively review all matter and aren't completely devoted to justifying meat-eating with whatever scraps of medical microbiology they can dig up after the fact to justify their dietary choice/faith). never mind the nerve of keith to blatantly lie about tryptophan and then claim she is a believer in truth over ideology. also note "margo's" rationalizing away keith's bad science, keith's disingenuous confusion about the reasons behind her supposed ill health, keith's psychologically hostile projection against all vegetarians, and keith's dreamy anti-civ misanthropy

besides I frankly don't give a rats ass what Australopithecus ate
by not keith
Sunday Apr 4th, 2010 10:10 PM
Well, again, i never read keith's book, and like i say, from what i can gather about it, it's none-too-original. Maybe it would suit some people to believe that anyone who harbors doubts about vegetarianism as a political ideology is a sort of quantum mechanically identical particle, whose main goal in life is to maniacally attack vegetarians and eat as much meat as possible. Personally, I'm not aware that my health has suffered from previously being a vegetarian, unlike keith (or so she claims). I don't doubt, though, that some people could have problems on a diet that is too restrictive. And again, I don't really know anything about Campbell other than what other people have written. Personally, I'm curious enough about him, given his illustrious credentials, that I do want to see if the claims that Anthony Colpo has made have any truth, which it seems any of us could do by going to a university library.

The reason I'm not troubled by possible falsehoods uttered by keith is that, given she is a lay person who has never made any special claims of academic expertise in the subjects about which she writes, I don't really hold her to standards of peer-reviewed academic rigor in her claims, nor should anyone else. Why should I be surprised if her book contains questionable statements scattered here and there? That's not unusual in a popular book by an amateur on these subjects.

I would be a lot more troubled to verify that Campbell's work has similar flaws. That, I think, should trouble anybody. Again, I haven't actually performed the exercise yet that Colpo challenges us with. I have to remain agnostic until then. Perhaps, for all I know, it is Colpo who is lying through his teeth. I'm going to take him up on his challenge, though. It's unfortunate, in any case, that Campbell has never actually seen fit to address the specific points raised by Colpo, not even in his widely disseminated retort to Chris Masterjohn, where he obliquely refers to Colpo's critique. Unless I've completely missed something. If anyone else knows better, please set me straight.
by Steve
Monday Apr 5th, 2010 4:35 AM
by not keith
The reason I'm not troubled by possible falsehoods uttered by keith is that, given she is a lay person who has never made any special claims of academic expertise in the subjects about which she writes, I don't really hold her to standards of peer-reviewed academic rigor in her claims, nor should anyone else. Why should I be surprised if her book contains questionable statements scattered here and there?

Because she is passing her book off as non-fiction? It is a convention of our culture that when one does so the contents are facts?

Dr. Campbell published several essays answering his popular critics like Cojo as well as ones in the scientific community. He even addresses (the meaningful -- from other scientists ) differences with his views in his book.

Dr. Campbell's book is in most library systems. Given your interests you might find it useful to read it.

by Steve
Monday Apr 5th, 2010 4:41 AM
Margo;

No disrespect, but I am not buying any of it.

The facts aren't on your side and your arguments are weak.

You are here to defend your lifestyle because at some level you know it is wrong and your care.

We all have things like that, yours happens to be with what you eat.

Good Luck.
by Censorship is last resort of cowards!
Monday Apr 5th, 2010 6:52 PM
Adam Weissman wrote (above comments);

"When Tom Regan, author of The Case for Animal Rights found his ideas challenged by philosophers like Jan Narveson and R.G. Frey, did he respond by throwing pies at them? No, he wrote a reasoned defense of his position, presented it in as the President's Address of the American Society for Value Inquiry, and then published it in his book Defending Animals Rights and in the reissue of his classic The Case for Animals Rights."

Thanks Adam, for shedding some real logic minus the name calling into this comment thread! Whatever happened to debating with somebody that you disagree with? Since when has overt censorship become the weapon of choice for anarchists, vegans or any other animal rights activists??

The three individuals who threw the pie at Lierre were thankfully the exception, most vegans and anarchists prefer dialogue and debate instead of outright censorship by throwing pies into people's faces while they are talking. If any vegans disagree with statements made in Lierre's book, why not detail the quote and provide a counterpoint with references to prove her wrong, and have enough patience and respect to wait until after her speech and ask questions? If that doesn't work, then go to the internet and debate her positions there!!

More appropriate (though higher risk) targets for pie throwing would be those with whom debate is an impossibility, such as CEOs of agribusiness corporations like ADM, Cargill, ConAgra and others whose subsidized grains and corns are essential components of modern factory farms. However, it is far easier to throw pies at primitivist authors standing alone than to circumvent the security apparatus of corporate CEOs giving speeches at conventions or other restrictive forums. From the animal rights perspective, which target would have been more effective?

After being a vegan for several years, i have reverted to omnivore status, though remain steadfastly opposed to industrial factory farming of animals. My problem with the vegan agenda is that it appears as a result of significant problems with our current system of factory farming, then takes the universal position that "Eating any meat is wrong." Here is the first fallacy in logic that makes the vegan position impossible for me to agree with.

Point; Modern day industrial factory farming is cruel to animals, causes environmental pollution and the final meat product is generally unhealthy for human consumption.

This verifiable point does NOT imply under any terms that "Eating any meat is wrong." The sooner vegan ideologues can distance themselves from blanket statements like this and get specific with regards to problems caused by industrial factory farming, the better. Following this vegans can try to drop their egos and work together with permaculture activists, primitivists and indigenous peoples to replace factory farming with permaculture farms and hunting refuges for wild game.

Instead of the blanket statement "Eating meat is bad.", we've evolved to "Industrial factory farming is ethically wrong from an animal rights, ecological and human health perspective and needs to be discontinued." Case closed. Now vegans have gained allies in both the permaculture movement and the primitivist/indigenous hunting movement, and the combined forces will do better to pose a challenge to the REAL enemy, industrial factory farming corporations.

As an aside to the censorship debate and whether anarchists, vegans or others have the "right" to stifle freedom of speech by physically attacking the speaker, let me relate this incident to another similar conflict that happened earlier.

When some so-called anarchists and leftist militants physically attacked, spit upon and chased a very small group (12?) of neo-Nazis out of a public park in Riverside and then posted their exploits on la indymedia months ago, my comment response to them was that they were bullies and cowards who only enabled the neo-Nazis to view themselves as "oppressed", as their freedom of speech was suppressed by rule of leftist mob force. Furthermore, the attack only encourages an already extreme far right group of people to disappear from public view and once again work on their plans in the underground.

Visible neo-Nazis talking their hate out loud in public parks are at least not holed up in a basement somewhere building bombs, but since when were leftist or anarchist militants ever the victims of neo-Nazi bomb attacks? No, the disgruntled neo-Nazis who were chased out of the park in Riverside would more likely attack some minority groups in a public place, while the mob of spitting anarchists and leftists were safe at home and out of harm's way. Thanks for your concern about the public antics of neo-Nazis in Riverside, but no thanks for your heavy handed methods of censorship that do anything but make the initial problems "go away".

My position would be seen as "defending hate speech" by some on the left, though in reality the hate or anger that motivates modern neo-Nazis cannot ever be understood by spitting on people, it will only further entrench and strenghten their hate. The pro-censorship leftist militants who would call me a neo-Nazi sympathizer missed the point, that the only way to stop hatred and ignorance is through debate, dialogue and education.

That's as far as i'll go with the neo-Nazi comparisons to Lierre, am NOT claiming that she was a neo-Nazi or that her positions have anything to do with the Riverside incident. Am simply saying that even in the most extreme examples of public hate speech, censorship by force is NOT the best or most effective response. Consider that when taking an extreme position such as veganism or anarchism there will be disagreement from different people for various reasons, though not everyone who disagrees is neccesarily a "vegan-hater" or a "neo-Nazi sympathizer". That sort of polarized thinking only shows the mental imbalances in clear light, and will serve to distance the logical people and attract more irrational extremists to your cause.

Just as the spitting attacks by the leftist mob on neo-Nazis in Riverside did not result in me joining their group and adopting their outdated ideology, the pie attack on Lierre will not cause me to rush out and purchase her book. My ideas about veganism sort of paralled hers without me even knowing that she existed, as this article with comments is the first that i ever heard of her. Again, the net result of the pie throwing incident only helps expand Lierre's publicity and influence, if the bookfair event would have ended with some comments and discussion minus the pie throwing maybe i still wouldn't know about her and her book. So by trying to censor her, the pie throwers resulted in further advancing her public influence.

However, such physically aggressive forms of censorship against both the small group of neo-Nazis by the leftist mob and the pie throwing against Lierre by the vegan militants reaffirmed my position that extreme political ideologies are overall unhealthy, whether far left or far right, i will avoid these extremists like the plague. Consider me an "Obama-centrist" now, thanks in large part to the violent censorship tactics coming from extremists. Am even considering a job with the FBI because i feel that such extremists are actually hurting the animal rights cause far more than they are helping it. Just kidding about that FBI job, but seriously, try to learn to dialogue even with your ideological enemies and you may enter into new territory previously unimaginable. We're talking about broad based coalition building where ranchers, animal rights activists, ecologists and labor activists ALL JOIN FORCES and finally reach critical mass to shut down industrial factory farms for good!!

If anything, all the forced censorship from leftist and vegan militants does is drive moderate people away from anarchist and vegan circles and more into the mainstream. Why? Censorship by force is the most obvious example of a group losing an ideological arguement.

Just look at the Chinese government's iron fisted treatment of dissidents (Tibetans, Falun Gong, etc...), are these censor-happy totalitarian goons the new role models for vegans? If you cannot debate with your opponents in public parks or bookfairs without spitting on their persons or throwing pies in their eyes, your logic is failing and for me personally i will have nothing to do with your cause. If the cops come and arrest you for using violence and physical intimidation, that's not my problem.

There may be a place for physical violence against NON-LIVING OBJECTS such as factory farms, dams, agribusinesses, military installations and other imperialist infrastructure components provided that NO HUMAN or ANY other living being is harmed in accordance with the ALF/ELF credo. However, going after vastly outnumbered groups with mob force or three able-bodied males attacking a disabled female whom they disagree with is NOTHING LESS than thuggery in it's base form, even the Mafia goon squads have more respect towards human rights than these thugs!!

This pie throwing incident will further serve to open discussion between vegans, permaculture activists and hunter/gather primitivists on what direction we will collectively take to shut down factory farms and provide people with other options for meat consumption besides the current dominant methods.

Either you know your shit or you don't, and if you cannot debate with a speaker without resorting to censorship, then you don't belong at any bookfairs. If you don't know enough to debate her, then why are you vegan in the first place? Trends and fashions do not belong in the anarchist circles, intellectual and rational discussions do. If you cannot debate without throwing pies in people's eyes, then please visit the public library, bookstore or internet and read enough info until you have a reasoned counterpoint for whatever she said that you disagree with. Or if that's too much work then just go and be another goony thug, but then please don't discredit legitimate vegans and anarchists who do not wish to engage in heavy handed censorship tactics!! Just call yourself a pro-censorship thug!!
by lol
Tuesday Apr 6th, 2010 11:28 AM
"Thanks Adam, for shedding some real logic minus the name calling into this comment thread"

Later:

"...vegan ideologues"

And sorry dude, but you have no understanding of animal rights. Vegans do not look at factory farms and then apply their disgust to all forms of animal agriculture. Our disgust IS for all forms of animal use. For fuck's sake, veganism and animal rights were created long BEFORE factory farming.
by okey-dokey
Tuesday Apr 6th, 2010 3:06 PM
Okay, so think about what you're saying there. Really think.

"Hunting refuges for wild game." Hmmm.

How big a refuge, or how many refuges, do you think it would take to feed 350 million Americans each meat three times a day every day of the year?

And how long before those "refuges" were stripped of every living creature that could be eaten?

What would this do to ecological systems in these refuges?

Your primitivist/anti-civ fantasies just don't make a lick of sense.

The only way that nonsense works is if it's coupled with another fantasy, that is the mean-spirited wish that 3/4 or more of the earth's population would die in a short period of time.

Either way, it's all fantasy, some of it disturbingly misanthropic.
by before the word "vegan" existed!
Tuesday Apr 6th, 2010 5:16 PM
lol wrote;

"For fuck's sake, veganism and animal rights were created long BEFORE factory farming."

That's news to me! What about Upton Sinclair's 1905 book "The Jungle", written about factory farms and slaughterhouses long before the word "vegan" even existed!! That book exposed the horrendous practices of factory farming and slaughterhouses that were happening during the early 1900s.

Background and excert from "the Jungle";

"Upton Sinclair Hits His Readers in the Stomach

In 1904, in the midst of a bitter stockyard strike, socialist writer Upton Sinclair’s two-month visit to Chicago’s “Packingtown” area provided him with a wealth of material that he turned into his best-selling novel, The Jungle. The book is best known for revealing the unsanitary process by which animals became meat products. Yet Sinclair’s primary concern was not with the goods that were produced, but with the workers who produced them. Throughout the book, as in this chapter, he described with great accuracy the horrifying physical conditions under which immigrant packing plant workers and their families worked and lived, portraying the collapse of immigrant culture under the relentless pressure of industrial capitalism. Despite his sympathies, as a middle-class reformer Sinclair was oblivious to the vibrancy of immigrant communities beyond the reach of bosses, where immigrants found solidarity and hope. Sinclair’s graphic descriptions of how meat products were manufactured were an important factor in the subsequent passage of the federal Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Act in 1906. Sinclair later commented about the effect of his novel: "I aimed at the public’s heart and by accident hit its stomach."

"Worst of any, however, were the fertilizer-men, and those who served in the cooking-rooms. These people could not be shown to the visitor,—for the odor of a fertilizer-man would scare any ordinary visitor at a hundred yards, and as for the other men, who worked in tank-rooms full of steam, and in some of which there were open vats near the level of the floor, their peculiar trouble was that they fell into the vats; and when they were fished out, there was never enough of them left to be worth exhibiting,—sometimes they would be overlooked for days, till all but the bones of them had gone out to the world as Durham’s Pure Leaf Lard!"

article found @;
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5727/

This shows that even though Sinclair focused on the workers in the slaughterhouses and meatpacking warehouses of Chicago, that factory farming was well underway at that time. The beginning processes of industrialization of meat was already happening then, though it has only gotten worse. Since Upton Sinclair's book "the Jungle", the industrial meat production system has gotten exponentially further and further away from what permaculture farmers would consider healthy for animals and the people who consume them.

Following WW2 and the increased availability of petroleum derived fertilizers and excess grains, we saw the emergence of the feedlots on massive scales, leading to several powerful agribusiness corporations (ADM, Cargill, ConAgra, etc...) having influences over smaller ranchers to encourage consolidation and the trend leading to expanding factory farm feedlot systems.

No, most of the modern day animal rights activists are opposed to industrial factory farming moreso than "against all uses of animals". At least the more rational ones who are able to rank their priorities in the case of the worst scenario being the factory farm feedlot, NOT free range, NOT permaculture of smaller ranchers who try to treat the animals as humanely as possible.

Given the circumstances of our economy, tremendous amounts of pressure are placed upon the smaller independent ranchers to either increase production, consolidate into ranching corporation with others or they will go out of business, which would end up with them selling their animals to the highest bidder, most likely one of the larger corporate factory/feedlot CAFO entities where the serious animal abuse and disease breeding occurs.

Calling someone a "vegan ideologue" doesn't need to be an insult. Then there's the issues of "lol" taking my two words out of context without posting the entire sentence, though i'll let that poor debating strategy go for now. We need ideologues in every group to articulate what members of the group (vegans, primitivists, socialists, anarchists, etc...) want. If someone is not being a good ideologue, the group will eventually ignore or distance themselves from that individual. Maybe someone started out as a vegan ideologue and then realized they were really a primitivist ideologue, or an anarchist ideologue who sounds more like a socialist ideologue. People are free to change their thinking, and Lierre started out as a vegan ideologue and became a primitivist ideologue. Get it? So i'm not saying that being an ideologue is a bad thing!!

Neither does the dictionary;

i·de·o·logue (d--lôg, -lg, d-)
n.
An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

[French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie, ideology; see ideology.]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideologue


So maybe i should say "bad vegan ideologues" vs. "good vegan ideologues" though that sounds simplistic. Substitute "bad" for ineffective and substitute "good" for effective, in terms of strategy. The point was that there is good and there is bad strategy that comes out as ideology.

The "good vegan" ideology would be more accurate in specifically targeting the worst case scenario of CAFO factory farm feedlots, the largest and most profitable corporations should recieve most of the energy from the good vegan activist warriors, whether physical, ideological or some combo of both, as both are needed and crucial to winning a campaign.

Am not trying to insult vegans, though i feel some of the responses are in the form of COINTELPRO style antagonisms designed to provoke conflict between vegans and primitivsts, and maybe the pie throwing incident was the catalyst.

Now we're off to the other myth relating to primitivism as described in the most recent comment, and oft repeated elsewhere. Here's a generalized summary of this myth;

"In order for primitivist lifestyle and diet to be effective, 3/4 (or some very large number) of people will need to die off and be no longer existant on Earth. Therefore advocates of primitivism are also advocates of mass human genocide."

When we primitivist ideologues rebutt this myth, we need to explain that several other myths are related to this sort of thinking.

Secondary myth # 1) Primitivists are opposed to birth control therefore the only way they can reduce human population is to advocate for mass killings.

No, primitive or indigenous cultures frequently had access to and used certain medicinal plants that exhibited properties of birth control. Not as simple as going to the pharmacy, though enough shamans or healers were trained in the administration of these plants that it would be effective enough.

BTW - Footnote to end the term "primitivist" and replace with "indigenist" as we're all indigenous to somewhere, and what most "primitivists" advocate is a return to an Earth-centered lifestyle that was practiced by almost all peoples prior to conquest or invasions by empires, colonialists, etc...

Secondary myth #2) Indigenists (or primitivists) want to reduce modern human populations because they want to "live like the Native Americas did" before Columbus, and there just were not that many Native Americans here. The land cannot support large human populations lime we have today unless we implement some form of an industrialized food production system, and we definitely cannot be meat eaters!

The population numbers of Native Americans prior to Columbus is open for debate. On one side is the conservative estimate of "not that many" and the other side claims "more than previously stated". Am specifically avoiding numbers because that is what is being argued about. The point is that the landscape may have been capable of feeding many more Native Americans than previously estimated, and that implies that many more were killed than previously documented. We have difficulty locating every unmarked grave or mass burial site where indigenous peoples were massacred by settlers and/or government troops and simply left there or buried in unmarked graves. See Ward Churchill as a reference for this debate, he is challenging the previous population estimates and claiming that more indigenous people were here before Columbus than modern estimates state.

Maybe not as many people as are here now, though the point is that this landscape can and will sustain people without the requirement of industrialized farming OR without the requirement that everyone become vegan. We can also use permaculture and habitat restoration to implement a safety net in the form of wild game hunting messages.

Obviously the provacative commentator forgot to read the entire comment i posted where i specifically stated;

Under current conditions there does NOT exist enough wild game to support the modern human population. What i proposed was to restore habitat as the foundation so that wild game animals (pronghorn, deer, elk, rabbits, etc...) can feed and breed until their population numbers are restored to the point where REGULATED hunting can occur. Obviously we can't have everyone getting up tomorrow with thier shotguns and going willy nilly into the wild shooting at anything that moves! Do not try to make me into an idiot, please!

This habitat restoration for wild game would not exclude wild plant gatherers either! What about the simple task of replanting valley oaks TODAY so that they can mature and in several decades be dropping protein and carb rich acorns for gathering? Indigenous peoples in CA planted oak groves so that they could harvest the acorns in future years. This is like forest farming or permaculture, slight interference with nature, though the outcome and the process is beneficial for all "parties" involved.

The reason that restoration of habitat to "pre-Columbus" conditions is needed is that when peak oil hits our society our modern industrialized food production system that enables the population growth of humans will no longer be effective! We need plants and animals that can grow on their own without any help from humans. We only need to harvest and collect the wild treasures that the Earth will provide.

Permaculture is the "missing link" in the transition and will supplement and enhance the wild food sources by using rainfall and soil nutrients to their maximum benefit without any industrialized inputs. This includes free range animals as dropping fertilizer and grazing on grass or insects in the case of chickens. This is true symbiotic farming that is cruelty free for animals and plants alike, non-polluting to our ecosystem and the simultaneoulsy the most efficient way of growing food.

Here's one of many examples of permaculture healing the Earth;

"Masanobu Fukuoka developed a system of rice farming and orcharding that involved no cultivation, no chemical fertilizer or prepared compost, no weeding by tillage or herbicides, and no pruning. Once he got “out of the way” of nature his rice and orchard yields matched industrial agricultures. He was doing another vastly important thing, he was building topsoil. Each year Fukuoka’s fields became more fertile.

We cannot expect everyone of us to start living like Masanobu Fukuoka today, but for those who are ready let’s start considering a new story—that “humanity belongs to the earth.” The story we live by is the rudder that steers our culture. Change the story and the culture will follow in time.

An ecosystem is a network of inseparable patterns of relationships and energy flows. Our planet, Gaia, is a self-regulating whole life system. Sunlight is the only input to this closed loop. A life form is what “it does.” The now extinct passenger pigeon was a huge nutrient distribution system. When one of the several mile long flocks of birds that darkened the sky stopped to roost, it left two to three inches of manure nutrients. One flock of millions of passenger pigeons did 300 to 1,000 years of soil building in a few just a few days."

found @;
http://permaculture.org.au/2009/01/27/rejoining-gaia-restore-our-ecosystem-symbiosis/

Permaculture includes animals, and this is where it diverges from strict veganism. Permaculture recognizes that domesticated animals are very close to their wild state, and given the chance would rather roam wild (within reason) than be trapped in a CAFO prison cell. The wisdom is to know how much grazing is too much, and not fall into the profit motivated trap of overgrazing. Outside of the monitoring and regulation, permaculture can exist nearly "on it's own" and supply people with healthy cruelty free plant and animal foods, and also support our current human population. Though we still need to advocate for access to safe birth control for every human who wishes it, and prevent the dominating influences of certain religions (Mormons, Baptists, Catholics) who either forbid or discourage use of safe birth control. One point where i agree with the Chinese government is their one child only policy, that helps keep our population in check.

In the event of a premature collapse of industrialized society, people with knowledge of edible plant gathering and animal hunting will be at an "unfair" advantage. Even though the info is readily available for free on the internet or public library, many modern people remain ignorant of wild food harvesting and will find themselves in a dangerous position following collapse of industrial food productions systems. Maybe this is unfair, though to call this "genocide" is inaccurate in semantics because a genocide is a controlled and targeting extermination of a specified population, usually carried out by a government or military force.

On the other hand, the indigenous people who have held on to their Earth-centered traditions and knowledge of wild food harvesting the longest will be better off following collapse than they are now. All the oil, mining, and timber corporations that are invading their landspace now will no longer be there, so they can finally breathe. Collapse will be worst for the moderns and best for the most indigenous, so in the long term outcome maybe it is fair and exactly what "God" wants to happen.

Post-collapse scenarios could well involve mass die off of humans, though most likely the government and military will themselves be dieing off alongside everyone else. There could be some martial law scenarios like FEMA after Katrina, though most likely this would disintigrate into a chaotic state over time. Another reason to shut down ALL nuclear facilities now while we still can and maybe send the nuclear waste into outer space, though i really don't have any good ideas about that predicament.

Under current conditions many people are also dying off, though not as dramatic numbers as the anti-primitivist myth claims will happen post collapse. Here and there people die everyday from starvation, war, suicide, cancer, random violence, auto accidents and many other preventable outcomes, yet nobody would dare call advocates of continued industrialized society "genocidal fanatics", that label can only be used on primitivists.

So go ahead, paint me your worst case post collapse human die off scenario and i'll still take it over the mess that we're in now. What if every single Homo sapiens on the Earth dies?

What if baboons are the next in line to become the dominant intelligent force on Earth following the extinction of humans? Sorry to sound so cold, but cry me a river. Have always found their bright red baboon buttocks attractive, so maybe we can cross breed? Just kidding, but really, who are any of us to guess the will of the Universe??

Maybe i really am from outer space, after all, how could i not love the sweet, kind and cuddly humans??

IF the worst case scenario does NOT happen and some humans survive and hide out from the radiation in some thick walled caves, what will they eat? What about those (conspiracy theory) walled off underground bunker food stockpiles the government maintains where everyone who is on "The List" gets to go and eat canned and preserved food for the next few years under the watchfull eyes of the new world security forces?

Would the Pygmies and Yanomamo in the tropical rainforest be sheltered by enough tree canopy to escape the brunt of the radiation? Would some survive and reproduce enough until the radiation cloud dissapates and then repopulate the Earth?

All guesses are open to speculation, am hesitant to give any certain answers. Though as i'm included with the rest of the humans and not on "The List" (even if i was, i'ld take my chances outside than be locked down there with Cheney and all the other "Chosen Ones"), it would be inaccurate to say that i'm advocating genocide as i'm in the same category as everyone else, though all my skills at leaching acorns and cooking roadkill rabbits may put me at a slight advantage, there will certainly be less roadkill rabbits after industrial collapse!!

Guess my next task is to take up archery!!
by slaughterhouses
Tuesday Apr 6th, 2010 6:57 PM
I can't be bothered to read everything you said, but the Jungle isn't about factory farming. Slaughterhouses have been a component of any type of livestock rearing since the industrial revolution and still are. Factory farming didn't truly begin until the late 1940's -- after the creation of the first Vegan Society.
by hmmm
Tuesday Apr 6th, 2010 7:29 PM
i·de·o·logue: An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology

>> The story we live by is the rudder that steers our culture. Change the story and the culture will follow in time.

Hypocrisy much? Sounds to me like you are an "advocate of a particular ideology." Yet you throw the word ideologue around as a smear of vegans, even in your attempt-to-be-fair refining of your use of it into good vs. bad vegans. We're not fooled by your weak scientific arguments as they are built on a house of cards of romantic notions of pre-industrialized people and fantasies about massive human die-offs in the future. The "science" you quote is an afterthought to try and justify this preconceived ideology of yours.

As for cointelpro, Keith clearly threw the grenade into the room between vegans and anti-civ/primitivists or whatever you want to call yourself. She didn't just write: "hey I'm anti-industrial agriculture, anti-civ, and I used to be veg." She wrote that vegetarians are deluded, childish, and ignorant, ALL vegetarians, even saw fit to title her book as such, and only Keith knows best, never mind her warped and dishonest understanding of science. She tells lies in her book and on TV - and she profits from preexisting anti-veg prejudice. Look to Keith first if you want to claim any cointelpro-ing going on of late. The pieing was simply a crude reaction to her direct assault on all vegetarians.

Lastly, try to keep your comments to a few paragraphs at a time rather than trying to bury us all in your OPINION.
by chron
Wednesday Apr 7th, 2010 12:31 PM
Less meat, no bus window ads and more

Meat-Free Mondays, forbidding window advertising on Muni buses and closing a loophole in the city's plastic bag ban -- all in a day's work for the Board of Supervisors.

The board on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell declaring every Monday "Vegetarian Day" or "Veg Day," which encourages restaurants, grocery stores and schools to offer more vegetarian fare.

The only thing is, it doesn't actually require anything and there is no enforcement capability, just like other resolutions the board passes.

Maxwell said it was important to draw attention to the relationship between diet and climate change, citing a 2009 World Bank report that found farm animals and their byproducts are responsible for at least 51 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

And it's not like San Francisco's exactly going out on a limb here. After all, Ghent, Belgium has a weekly vegetarian day, and Takoma Park, Md., has "Takoma Park Veg Week."

Maxwell's companion resolution commending businesses that use only cage-free eggs also sailed through.
by Steve
Thursday Apr 8th, 2010 7:05 PM

nutrition_vegetarian130_main.jpg

Oxygen magazine interviews vegan fitness competitor Melissa Brey

She is about the same age as Lierre Keith and is much more healthy. She is probably a lot more healthy than a lot of meat centered diet cult people posting to this thread too.

by Me in MT
Saturday Apr 10th, 2010 9:58 AM
I agree that attacking the author (no matter who her corporate sponsor is) is wrong and dangerous (if it was laced with pepper)

But don't blame all vegans for a few people's behavior.

And please understand Vegans do not tell people what to eat, they tell people what they are eating. No one I know would willingly eat a tortured animal - for us to stay in denial doesn't stop the torture - it just prolongs it.
And no one I know wants to promote water pollution and de-forestation caused by cheap hamburger addiction.
Learn the facts, change your behavior and we will all be healthier.
by Veganism responded to worsening conditions
Saturday Apr 10th, 2010 3:26 PM
"slaughterhouses" wrote;

"I can't be bothered to read everything you said, but the Jungle isn't about factory farming. Slaughterhouses have been a component of any type of livestock rearing since the industrial revolution and still are. Factory farming didn't truly begin until the late 1940's -- after the creation of the first Vegan Society."

Already said (had you bothered to read everything i said) that The Jungle was primarily written about slaughterhouses, though the process of factory farms leading to slaughterhouses began earlier than the 1940s, though the worsening of conditions in factory farms continued and probably escalated beyond the 1940s rapidly due to the increased availability of petroleum derived fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides producing grains for agribusiness. So maybe the CAFO feedlots are more recent, though the trend towards consolidation of ranching into factory farms was already happening since the 1920s. Still sounds to me that veganism occured as a response to worsening conditions in factory farming, NOT the other way around.

Maybe you can be bothered to read this?

"The Evolution of Factory Farms

Factory farming began in the 1920s soon after the discovery of vitamins A and D; when these vitamins are added to feed, animals no longer require exercise and sunlight for growth. This allowed large numbers of animals to be raised indoors year-round. The greatest problem that was faced in raising these animals indoors was the spread of disease, which was combated in the 1940s with the development of antibiotics. Farmers found they could increase productivity and reduce the operating costs by using mechanization and assembly-line techniques.

Unfortunately, this trend of mass production has resulted in incredible pain and suffering for the animals. Animals today raised on factory farms have had their genes manipulated and pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and other chemicals to encourage high productivity. In the food industry, animals are not considered animals at all; they are food producing machines. They are confined to small cages with metal bars, ammonia-filled air and artificial lighting or no lighting at all. They are subjected to horrible mutilations: beak searing, tail docking, ear cutting and castration. Even the most minimum humane standards proposed are thwarted by the powerful food conglomerates."

read entire article @;
http://www.idausa.org/facts/factoryfarmfacts.html




then "hmmm" wrote;


"Hypocrisy much? Sounds to me like you are an "advocate of a particular ideology." Yet you throw the word ideologue around as a smear of vegans, even in your attempt-to-be-fair refining of your use of it into good vs. bad vegans."



Already said that ideologue is a neutral term. Already said i am myself an ideologue. So therefore your accusation that i am using the term to "smear vegans" is false.

then "hmmmm" wrote;

"We're not fooled by your weak scientific arguments as they are built on a house of cards of romantic notions of pre-industrialized people and fantasies about massive human die-offs in the future. The "science" you quote is an afterthought to try and justify this preconceived ideology of yours."




Fantasy about massive human die-offs that would most likely also include myself?. No, the term would be "warning" about this impending die-off, and the science behind this warning is the peak oil theory that once petroleum becomes scarce our entire industrial food system for both plants and animals would be difficult to maintain as petroleum derived pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides that currently prop up our overpopulated human species would be unavailable. Following the collapse of industrial agriculture, the options are for permaculture and hunter gatherer lifestyle as ALL humans have lived with for thousands of years before industrialization.

No, i don't hate humans, nor am i wishing for a massive human die-off. When the problems of industrialized food production systems keep on getting worse, we try to return to the simplest and most effective means of humanely reducing our population by making available birth control (currently being denied to millions by order of the Catholic church, though they sure like little altar boys!) and creating a safety net of permaculture farms and wild game refuges (also for wild plant collection) TODAY so that we can have more options in the future.




Don't just hear about it from me;

"Global oil production will peak soon and the spike in oil prices will quickly exacerbate other major problems facing industrial agriculture. Food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods (including packaging and delivery) now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. It has been estimated that about four percent of the nation's energy budget is used to grow food, while about 10 to 13 percent is needed to put it on our plates. In other words, a staggering total of 17 percent of America's energy budget is consumed by agriculture! [35]

By 2040, we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet the basic food needs of the eleven billion people who are expected to be alive. But doing so would require a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. [36] But the depletion of oil will make it physically impossible -- thus economically impossible -- to provide enough net energy to agriculture: "A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses." [37] Global food production will drop to a fraction of today's numbers: "If the fertilizers, partial irrigation [in part provided by oil energy], and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels." [38] Obviously, death certificates have already been issued for billions of unsuspecting people.

The dependence of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, the declining fertility of the land, and the positive feedbacks imposed by declining net energy will force the economy to divert much more investment into the agriculture and energy sectors as part of a desperate attempt to maintain agricultural output. Government budgets must also decline in real terms as greater and greater fractions of the economy are diverted into the resource sectors."

above article found @;
http://peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=291




also, the "Nutcracker";

"Taking peak oil doctrine further

The bell curve of oil "production" was devised by Marion King Hubbert, a Shell Oil and U.S. government geologist. Although Hubbert has on the whole been borne out except in the minds of fundamentalist-classical economists, what he did not factor in was collapse. Therefore, the curve will be truncated to a cliff just as the gap between supply and demand is felt and hits.

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the police and military be able to maintain order, if at all. The damage that several days' oil shortage and outage will do will soon wreak permanent damage that starts with companies and consumers not paying their bills and not going to work.

After an almost instant depression seizes the modern industrialized world, and nation-states break down, the frantic attempts of people to feed themselves, stay warm and obtain fresh water (pumped presently via petroleum to a great extent), there will be no rescue. Die-off begins. The least petroleum-dependent communities will survive best. These "backward" nations will be emulated by the scrounging survivors of the U.S. and the rest of the "developed" world, as far as local food production will be tried -- in a paved-over, toxic landscape by people who have lost touch with the land.

What about renewable energy and other alternatives? They are not ready, and will never be as long as oil is king. This is something not acknowledged by the boosters of the technofix. When oil abdicates, no one can fill the shoes. (See Culture Change Letters on the Technofix such as # 77.)

However, there will be replacement societies, starting with bands, tribes and rural communities that will start cooperating with each other as never before. The age of the bioregional country, based on cooperation and mutual aid will begin. A main job-category will be restoration of the land so as to provide a semblance of the diversity of food that Earth provided prior to petroleum farming. Social structures will no longer lend themselves to overcrowded workforces dependent on the dollar to buy goods and services from huge, distant and unaccountable corporations. Argentina may be a guide to post collapse society, with its egalitarian and worker/citizen controlled systems."

entire article found @;
http://culturechange.org/e-letter-peakoil.html






then "hmmmm" wrote;

"As for cointelpro, Keith clearly threw the grenade into the room between vegans and anti-civ/primitivists or whatever you want to call yourself. She didn't just write: "hey I'm anti-industrial agriculture, anti-civ, and I used to be veg." She wrote that vegetarians are deluded, childish, and ignorant, ALL vegetarians, even saw fit to title her book as such, and only Keith knows best, never mind her warped and dishonest understanding of science. She tells lies in her book and on TV - and she profits from preexisting anti-veg prejudice. Look to Keith first if you want to claim any cointelpro-ing going on of late. The pieing was simply a crude reaction to her direct assault on all vegetarians."

Do not assume anything certain about anyone! There are always possible COINTELPRO style interventions that could be used to divide communities. Am not saying that this incident is in fact an FBI operation, just leaving the door open for other possible scenarios. People need to learn from the mistakes of others, and our brief history of activism shows that FBI does not limit their infiltration to the Black Panthers from the 1960s. FBI infiltration and disruption of ALL activist communities (even right-wingers!) should be understood as par for the course and can happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime. Believe that or not at your own risk!

Again, ANY and all disagreements with an individual within the activist community are best handled by debate, NOT by pie throwing. People who resort to pie throwing at fellow activists only demonstrate that they are not good at debating. If you do not like being called childish, then why defend those who engaged in childish behavior? Let me reiterate that CEOs of multinational corporations are really the most appropriate targets for pie throwing, NOT fellow activists, even if you strongly disagree with them!

lastly "hmmmm" wrote;
"Lastly, try to keep your comments to a few paragraphs at a time rather than trying to bury us all in your OPINION."

NO. My comments are as long as they need to be to explain my positions. These are complicated issues that cannot be glossed over in short sentences or scant paragraphs. Don't have the time to read my comments? No problem. Nobody here forces you to read any comments. Ever heard of skimming over comments not to your liking? If you don't have the time to read my comments, then why do you have time to respond to them?

We already live in the land of media soundbytes, and am overcoming this by explaining positions in detail so that my words cannot be warped and used against me by taking them out of context or oversimplification. Of course that won't stop anyone from finding the time to twist my words, after which i will be forced to respond and further elaborate my positions until a clearer understanding is reached. Get it?
by Steve
Saturday Apr 10th, 2010 6:23 PM

The more you write on the internet, the less people read.
by yup
Sunday Apr 11th, 2010 3:59 PM
you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think one single person will read your 2000 words comments here

there are only a few of us around still even checking out this thread

yeesh
by Steve
Thursday Apr 15th, 2010 6:57 AM
Keith tries to justify her opinions by citing the Weston Price foundation.

A group funded by meat producers and known for getting the facts wrong and in their financial favor.

This quote is from "news" blog that has nothing to do with veganism:

From
link

Looks like I got spoofed: the study in this morning's post about neurotoxins in soyburgers turns out to have been funded by an anti-vegetarian, pro-meat lobbying group, the Weston A Price Foundation. These are also the folks who say lard is good for you. Maybe the science is good, maybe it isn't (read the comments for good debate on it), but I sure feel a lot more suspicious about it than I did this morning. (Thanks, Xeni!)
by Steve
Thursday Apr 15th, 2010 7:03 PM
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

- Senator Patrick Moynihan

by Steve
Tuesday Apr 20th, 2010 6:48 PM
Thanks, vegans! by Omnivore Wednesday Mar 17th, 2010 7:59 PM
Her amazon.com ranking has gone from 4500 to 486 in the past few days. Think I'll buy a few more copies to celebrate!

Not anymore, back down to #4,439....after 4 weeks.

"The China Study" by Dr. T Colin Campbell is ranked at #115 4 years.

That is the difference being a degreed research scientist with 50 years of experience and 70 grant years of peer reviewed research funding makes versus being a writer with just a liberal arts background. The message of "The China Study" is that disease goes down as people eat a more plant based diet.

Amazon Sales Rank 2010 April 20 Keith's Book

by Mostly done to provide warnings
Thursday Apr 29th, 2010 1:50 PM
"yup" wrote;

"you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think one single person will read your 2000 words comments here."

Good. Remain ignorant. The less stupid humans know about their fate on Earth the better for us extraterrestrials who wait in the shadows for you humans to kill one another off the Earth so that we can take your place!!

These comments on indybay about the fate of humanity is mostly done as a Universal Law requirement to provide an intelligent species prepared for extinction a "fair warning". We have plenty of loopholes, in that so long as we provide fair warning to Homo sapiens in some random location, we have fulfilled our obligations according to Universal Law. If nobody bothers to read the fair warnings, that is not our problem!!

What Homo sapiens do with this fair warning is their choice, that is also part of Universal Law. You can choose to ignore the fair warning if you so desire, we really do not care about the fate of your destructive species any longer. You humans have had plenty of chances to clean up your act and have repeatedly failed, choosing greed over compassion for the many other species that share Earth with you. So keep on ignoring our warnings, they will soon disappear. Then all you will face are consequences for your collective actions.

We have fulfilled our obligations of fair warning and from now on you humans are on your own. If Homo sapiens cannot find a way to live on Earth sustainably then they will be replaced, that is also Universal Law.

Never too late to change, learn about the indigenous ways while you still can. Even two people who care to listen could be the future of humanity. Otherwise, peace out and hope that you've enjoyed your time here on Earth!!

by MB
Friday May 14th, 2010 10:56 AM
Sorry Steve, but if the book ranking had anything to do with validity we could argue that "The Da Vinci Code" is 100% true because so many people have purchased it and/or ranked it highly on Amazon.com. Also, Are you also suggesting that if someone receives the most grants to do a study that means their results are automatically correct?

The China Study has also been debunked, and it's flaws regarding data analysis (aka leaving out data) have been shown in plain view. Unfortunately the person who debunked the study isn't as "degreed" as Campbell so that must mean he's wrong, huh? I also find it hilarious that Dr. Campbell's "Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine" is tied to PETA. Shocking that someone associated with PETA would write a book that fudges data in an effort to condemn eating meat.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Someone who makes a conscious choice to steer their diet toward "healthy" foods will inevitably do better than those eating fast food and Twinkies. Vegan, Veggie or Paleo - none of those will promote eating processed foods... well, I guess vegetarians could eat Twinkies because they're not made with meat. Wait, does that mean they're healthy then?
by MB
Friday May 14th, 2010 11:21 AM
Melissa Brey... wow she looks great in tight clothes! That must mean ALL vegans are personal trainers! So we can judge overall health by focusing on how someone looks in a bathing suit? I know a guy who eats Paleo and he's in excellent shape, what does that prove? Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, does that prove that a high meat and steroid diet is healthy? All people are different when it comes to fitness level, and throwing up a picture of someone who's built and a Vegan proves nothing.

Did you notice her daily diet?! All that tofu and soy is poison - aka NOT healthy - regardless of how many miles she can run.

"- Isoflavones [found in unfermented soy] are estrogen like substances which have the same effect as the bodies estrogen. Cancer comes from having too much estrogen...
- Isoflavones kill testicular tissue. In men it permanently reduces testicular function and lowers Lutinizing Hormone production... - Isoflavones decrease thyroid hormone production. This can stunt children's growth and make the rest of us tired and fat....
- Isoflavones decrease HDL cholesterol...
- Soy contains Phytin, which takes essential minerals such as iron, zinc, magnesium etc. out of the body before they can be absorbed. Also soy contains Trypsin inhibitors block this vital anti cancer enzyme, anti fibrosis enzyme...
- Soy is connected with Vascular Dementia (Alzheimer's disease)..."

Oh and the author of the above excerpts is a doctor so by your standards that means he's right because he's "degreed."
(from http://healthnews.benabraham.com/html/soy_-_the_poison_seed.html)

Others:
http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/index.htm
http://www.healthiertalk.com/dont-believe-hype-soy-cant-cure-cancer-1231
The pie was loaded with cayenne pepper.
To me, that makes it the equivalent of pepper-spraying her.
So the people who did it are basically behaving like cops.
Fuck them.
by Maria
Wednesday May 26th, 2010 3:49 PM
Lierre Keith's book is an illuminating look at the unexamined aspects of vegetarianism. If you can get past the provocative title and keep an open mind, you just might learn a thing or two about the faulty analysis that lies at the heart of the vegetarian perspective. It's just too bad that those who need to be made aware of the info presented in the book will automatically shun that which might help save their life(from a nutritional perspective) and our wounded planet. Before you automatically decide to disagree with the ideas presented in the book, give it a fair reading and examine it seriously. Lierre has paid her dues and has sacrificed her health at the altar of veganism to bring the world this important message.
by Aaron
Friday Jun 25th, 2010 1:11 PM
The choice of language in the posts supporting this action are interesting. Example:

"Keith directly attacked vegetarianism and animal rights activists as whole, based her entire book on it, and she should not be surprised when some react unpleasantly to her attack"

The people who put hot pepper in pies, wore masks and threw the pies in the face of a woman with the intent of causing her pain were reacting unpleasantly. The person who wrote words in a book was attacking.

Nice self-programming you have going on there. Say it enough times and you'll actually believe that Keith did violence against someone, when in fact she simply wrote words in a book.
by Yo
Monday Jul 5th, 2010 10:25 AM
Someone started a wikki ( users contribute content after an editor approves it -- see WIKIpedia ) site to do nothing but contradict the content in Lierre Keith's book:


http://www.vegetarianmyth.com/
by person
Thursday Sep 9th, 2010 12:18 PM
Yeah, you would've called the cops too if you got maced in the face. An eye for an eye as I see it -- a bunch of men physically attacked a woman. BRAVO, shitbags! Way to pave the road for feminism and free speech. They are less like anarchists and more like moralistic fascists to me.
by Angela
Saturday Oct 2nd, 2010 11:52 AM
Wow, she had a crime committed against her, so she (gasp) called the cops? What was she supposed to do? I suppose she could have run after them and beat their sorry asses, but calling the cops seems like a more civilized thing to do...
by Miko Yoshi
Sunday Nov 7th, 2010 4:36 AM
Angela;

Keith was speaking at an anarchist book fair. I'm not an anarchist, but it is my understanding that they do not like the police and have a code about not involving the law in their conflicts.
by Steve
Sunday Nov 7th, 2010 7:21 AM
Lierre Keith does not have credentials in or an education in the topics she writes about in her book. People who have educations and credentials in those fields disagree with her and are starting to point out that she gets even many of the basic facts in those fields wrong.

Judge for yourself as to whether or not you should trust the material in Lierre Keith's book.

Review #1
http://tinyurl.com/2bhvh5n

Review #2
http://tinyurl.com/2ufrbtc
by Dave
Monday Dec 27th, 2010 11:20 AM
Her argument is sound.

She doesn't "attack" vegans. She's explaining to them.

There's a difference.

Read the book; grow up.
by David
Monday Apr 18th, 2011 4:14 PM
I haven't checked back here in a year, so I missed "Or up?"s last post. I came here today to show a friend the kind of delusional, self-cannibalising thinking one can find in political discussions, and found "Or ups" response to me. A hundred bucks says he is a police agent. Well, better late than never, so here is a response:

"Or up?" wrote:

"You can type a thousand words about freedom of speech, over and over, but that doesn't make them any more true, doesn't make it "the way it is."

"Anarchism is not necessary opposed to the use of violence or force to coerce. Not even sure where or how you came to believe that so firmly. Ward Churchill has called such advocacy pathological."

Sorry, "Or up?", but anarchism is opposed to coercion. That's just the way it is. How did I come to believe that? From the last hundred years of anarchist writings. That is the most fundamental property of anarchism. It is built into the meaning of the word. Opposition to coercion is the bedrock on which anarchism is built. All important anarchist writers of the last century agree. That's just the way it is. Please actually find out something about anarchism before you try to colonize it and debase it with whatever nasty little authoritarian political ideology you follow, or before you try trolling anarchists.

Please actually find out something about anarchism before making a fool of yourself. All you are doing is proving Lierre's point that vegans can't think clearly.

If anarchists support coercion, I guess vegans eat meat. If words don't mean anything, why not?

Please take your Orwellian "slavery is freedom", "war is peace", "anarchists coerce people" double-speak elsewhere.

Just knock it off, ok? You've done your job of trying to confuse people about the nature of anarchism, so go drop by the police station or FBI office and pick up your check - you earned it.

And don't confuse anarchism with pacifism.

By the way, Ward Churchill is not an anarchist, and he was criticising pacifism, not anarchism, with that statement. And if you want pathological, just read this forum to find pathological, self-cannibalizing destruction of effective political action. Or read a little Ward Churchill if you want pathological.

You might also want to find out a little about Mr. Churchill's dubious background before you give the slightest credence to anything he says. He is not an anarchist, he's a former government employee...

"Or up?" wrote:

"The anarchists in Greece have been quite successful at pushing back against police with force, with molotovs, rocks, sticks, whatever they have at hand. (That's "violence" - pieing is laughably exaggerated to be in the same ballpark.) These means are how Greeks have created numerous anarchist spaces. The Greeks who came through the bookfair said they believe in not jailing rapists but beating them up and dealing with them in other socially punitive means."

Nowhere did I say that anarchists can't defend themselves from violent attack, whether by cops or rapists. Hey, I chased the pie-throwers, and would have dealt them in kind if I had caught them. Think about it.

An old anarchist principle is that "If a man raises his hand in violence against me, he has, by that act granted me permission to respond in kind."

It is _not_ "If a man says something I don't like then I can physically attack him."

Anarchists can respond to fists with fists, bullets with bullets, and words with words. We don't respond to words with fists or bullets. That's just the way it is, and you can write a million words to the contrary if it makes you feel good about yourself, or if it makes you feel like you are a real rough, tough, badass "revolutionary", but all it makes you is an uninformed idiot. Or government agent.

Anarchism is not pacifism. Anarchists _can_ be pacifists, either ideologically or using it as a revolutionary tactic. There is room in anarchism for different tactics, and different ways of organizing a society, but one thing we do agree on is that we are opposed to authoritarianism and opposed to coercing people.

"Or up?" wrote:

"Also, note that Lierre is not an anarchist, not by her actions nor by what she claims of herself. She yelled out to call the police after the pieing. Do you support her call for jailing, fining, whatever by the state to punish pie-ers?"

"Would you be so interested in protecting Lierre's "rights" if her book had been called "The Anarchist Myth" - full of attacks on anarchists based on personal grudges and factually incorrect pseudo-science - and then was invited to speak as some sort of authority on the subject at the bookfair?"

More troll bullshit - I said I support her right to speak unmolested, nowhere did I say I support calling the police. Lierre is not an anarchist? No shit. The bookfair organizers have invited many interesting and controversial speakers who are in no way anarchists to the event, including Ward Churchill. It's called learning about others' ideas.

Only people who are unsure of their own ideas are afraid to hear differing views.

Yes, I absolutely would support her right to speak if she had written "The Anarchist Myth" - as I said, if you refuse to listen to those you disagree with, you are being pathologically self destructive, because you are keeping yourself in ignorance of the very information you need to counter your enemies.

You may be afraid to hear ideas you disagree with, I'm not. That's your problem, not mine.

The vegans here who refuse to read her book are only making themselves weak and unprepared to counter any untrue statements about themselves.

Attention vegan ninnies: How are you going to be able to argue effectively for your position if you don't even know the arguments that are being used against you? Read Lierre's book, listen to her arguments, and then marshall your own facts and counter arguments if you can come up with them. If she is wrong, refute her! It's that simple...

And "Or up?", try thinking through your own position for a moment - if using coercion, pie-ing with hot sauce in the eyes, or physical violence is ok to silence someone who says something you don't like, then that means I can silence you for saying that, right? If "some language is oppressive" so therefore using violence to silence it is ok (as some have argued), then hey, I can decide that someone who is advocating silencing people is "oppressive speech" (you are taking away my freedom to speak, eeeek, I'm being oppressed!)? So I guess I could kick the crap out of you or bust your teeth for that kind of speech, right? I'd be totally justified, right? Anarchists don't oppose coercion, right?

Talk your way out of that one...

I'm sorry, "or up?", but you are completely in error. You have no idea of what you are talking about. That's just the way it is.

As I said, when you silence others, you only end up silencing yourself.

There are plenty of flavors of anarchism, but freedom from coercion is essential to all - it is built into the meaning of the word. Even collectivist anarchists recognize that to be truly anarchistic, they must be based on a voluntary cooperation of individuals, and those who do not choose to join them are free to act as individuals outside of the collective. Sure, you can find some violentists who call themselves anarchists, but they are a tiny minority, and are no more "anarchist" than the so-called "National Anarchists" - white supremacist nazis masquerading as anarchists. As I said before, all sorts of nasty, authoritarian ideologies try to colonize anarchism and destroy it with Orwellian double-speak.

Trolls, college-boys, and government agents always have to have the last word, so I'll turn it back over to you, and you can continue to try to convince the ignorant that slavery is freedom, that war is peace, that vegans eat meat, and that anarchists coerce people...

But I will leave you with some quotes from real anarchists:

"My freedom is the freedom of all since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men [and women] who are my equals." --Michael Bakunin, quoted by Errico Malatesta, in Anarchy.

"Freedom for everybody ... with the only limit of the equal freedom for others; which does not mean ... that we recognise, and wish to respect, the 'freedom' to exploit, to oppress, to command, which is oppression and certainly not freedom." --Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas.

"My freedom is secured only when all other people around me are free." --Ret Marut (a.k.a. B. Traven), The BrickBurner magazine.

Malatesta said the "main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations... [and anarchists] are opposed to violence." He said that violence is "justifiable only when it is necessary to defend oneself and others from violence." He also recognized that violence might be necessary to overthrow a state which used violence to coerce. Nowhere did he advocate coercion in human relations, and nowhere did he advocate absolute pacifism.

"The violence and warfare which are characteristic conditions of the capitalist world do not go with the liberation of the individual, which is the historic mission of the exploited classes. The greater the violence, the weaker the revolution, even where violence has deliberately been put at the service of the revolution." --Bart de Ligt, The Conquest of Violence.

And finally:

"A structure based on centuries of history cannot be destroyed with a few kilos of dynamite". --Peter Kropotkin, 1887, in Le Révolté.
by Joshie Matthews
Wednesday Sep 4th, 2013 3:22 PM
Lierre Keith will respond to emails if she feels she can provide an adequate response. If you then point out a flaw in her response, not matter how politely you explain your disagreement, you will get no response.