The Idiot ideology of Anti-Meat By James Reed

As readers know I have developed into a crazed anti-climate change bug-eyed fanatic, but close on my list of manias is defending meat. Yes, yes, yes,  the taste of the juice, the primal blood, that brings back memories of the cave. That must be what the elites hate about meat, and why they embrace male emasculation, ready for the UN New World Order, helpless and bound, like meat itself, in fact:

“For at least the past ten years the United Nations has been aggressively promoting the concept of a meat free world, based on claims that accelerated land use and greenhouse gas emissions are killing the Earth. In the west, militant leftists with dreams of a socialist Utopia have adopted a kind of manifesto in the Green New Deal, and an integral part of their agenda is the end to the availability of meat to the common man (it's interesting the Green New Deal agenda matches almost perfectly with the UN's Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030). Some of these elitists have argued in favor of heavy taxation on meat products to reduce public consumption; others have argued for an outright ban. The problem with this dietary revolution is that it is based primarily on junk science and cherry-picked data, along with outright lies and propaganda. The majority of studies and articles covering this issue are decidedly biased, left leaning and collectivist in nature. Now, I plan to touch on this issue, but what I really want to focus on is the “WHY” of the matter – Why are the elites targeting human meat consumption, and why are they willing to lie about its effects in order to get us to abandon our burgers and steaks? What is the real agenda here...?

First, lets tackle the climate change issue. The UN claims that human food production must change drastically in order to stop global warming and damage to the environment, and these changes must focus mainly on meat production and 'methane gases'. In other words, they assert that cow farts are killing the planet. This is a rather convenient story for the elites as they push their carbon taxation agenda. It seems everything we do as humans must be monitored, restricted or taxed, from breathing to procreating to eating meat, otherwise the Earth is "doomed". In past articles I have written extensively on the direct ties between the UN's global warming hysteria and the push for global government. In particular, I've mentioned the writings of former UN assistant secretary general Robert Muller. In his manifesto collected on a website titled “Good Morning World”, Muller argues that global governance must be achieved using the idea of “protecting the Earth” and environmentalism as the key components. Through fear of environmental Apocalypse, the public could be convinced to accept global government as a necessary nanny state to keep society from destroying itself. Muller initiated such programs in the early 1990's, which were similar in tone to the Club of Rome think tank, a group of consultants to the UN which called for a stop to human population growth. In their white paper titled 'The First Global Revolution', the Club of Rome stated:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes. And it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner, and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator. From public admissions from UN officials and the Club of Rome, we can see that climate change is a narrative driven by ideology, not science, and that the real goal is global governance, not saving the planet. As for the “science” these ideologues say supports their demands, there is none. There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the claim that a cause and effect link between carbon emissions and rising temperatures exists. In fact, there is more evidence to show that the reverse is true – that higher temperatures result in greater animal populations and thus more carbon emissions and thus more food for vegetation. Ask any global warming “expert” from the NOAA, NASA or the IPCC what percentage of a temperature increase is caused by cars versus cows and what evidence there is to support their assertions? They won't be able to produce an answer.

They will simply claim that the evidence is irrefutable because the temperatures are rising and so are carbon levels. In other words, their argument is that correlation always equals causation. But are temperatures really rising? What if the entire basis for global warming hysteria is fabricated? The NOAA has been caught on multiple occasions doing just that. By going back to previously recorded temperature stats and tweaking them to make them lower, the NOAA then makes it appear as though the Earth is warming in a historic trend. However, the unaltered temperature record shows that the Earth has always had warming periods which run in natural cycles, followed by cooling and using tracking increased solar activity. You know that giant nuclear reactor in the sky that is 1.3 million times bigger Earth? Yeah, it has a lot more to do with the Earth's climate patterns than cow farts do...”

     Cow farts indeed, again tasty meat that we must continue to eat in political defiance of the politically correct. Just as fat is/was a feminist issue, so femo Susie Orbach wrote in her book (Fat is A Feminist Issue), 41 years ago, today meat is a Dissent Right manhood issue, and eating meat, red meat, even raw meat (not something health-wise to do), is now our act of defiance. I don’t have much money to buy meat, which is expensive beyond all reason, so I will make do with the Uncle Len special of cheap salty tin ham and Camp Pie. I remember as a kid going out with my father in his old ute, with another few cars of his work mates, crabbing. We caught heaps of crabs, that were cooked up that night on the beach. I had fried camp pie, eggs and crab meat, a sip of beer, and coke for tea. Then we had a sing song, rolled out swags and slept by the fire, with plenty of guns for protection against, nothing in particular, except the night. the wind blew sparks up into the night probably igniting bush fires across the planet (just joking), but certainly adding joyfully to the carbon footprint of everybody. It was pure tribal manhood, and wonderful, a ritual of carbon production, that socially constructed our masculine identities as eaters of meat, consumers of alcohol, and producers of carbon dioxide. I rather look forward to the new dark age of carbon dioxide, my very favourite gas.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Friday, 30 October 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to