15

votes

vegetarian myths Lierre keith new project "deep green resistance"

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 18, 2011 at 12:55 AM

I was wondering if anyone is following Lierre Keiths new project/book Deep Green Resistance.

Basically she is urging the use of armed resistance to resolve environmental issues and collapse industrial civilization.

Does this effect what you think of her previous work?

Would you be less likely to recommend her book to friends? Knowing that she is a militant anti-industrialist or luddite (or whatever). Basically if Ted Kaczynski had a wonderful nutrition book would you recommend it?

Do you have a critique of her ideas or tactics?

I know the "Deep Green Resistance" is not a serious threat to industrial civilization. But could it be a threat to spreading the ideas presented in The Vegetarian Myth.

here is a link for the website for D.G.R.

http://deepgreenresistance.org/

I Hope this isn't too political. If it is please don't hesitate to delete it.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

jakey: it is an overwhelming goal isn't it? does that make it unworthy to you? is it not a noble cause?

95eda9fa0cec952b482e869c34a566b6

on August 20, 2011
at 02:51 AM

@Matthew -- Ha ha ha! :-)

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:11 AM

good point melissa. hunter gatherers know this as well. it is common for women to abort pregnancies when they know the tribe cannot feed another person. Bottom line is we have WAY overshot the earth's carrying capacity for humans. make of that what you will

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:08 AM

And i don't understand how you could see hunter gatherers as the exceptions. since we hundreds of thousands of years ago, we have been hunter gatherers. only this last ten thousand have some of us branched off into something entirely different. Also, i just wanted to thank you for having a real and respectful conversation. i think too many people immediately slam the door on 'radicals' just because they have different opinions. thank you joe.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:06 AM

well we'll have to agree to disagree it seems. i see civilization and it's necessary agriculture as inherent attacks on nature. you are no longer a part of nature as a civilized person. you destroy nature for your benefit alone. Example: i want this acre near me turned plowed under so that i can only grow corn there to feed myself. This is directly opposed to hunter gatherers who interact with and build relationships with other animals and plants to form a mutually beneficial ecosystem.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:20 PM

I mean a purposeful undoing

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:19 PM

I disagree industrial civilization is that excess. It's just another trend within the larger phenomena of civlization of which you cannot assign a moral grade. YEs of course there are terrible excesses associated with industrial civilization, but so too with every other civilizaition. Sometimes the excesses are the very undoing of that civilization, but that doesn't mean the undoing of the civilization for some idealized more basic order is the best option.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:16 PM

"did you know that there are humans alive TODAY who are hunter gatherers?" I suppose I'd look at those as exceptions. The grander sweep of historical trends seems to show civilization as something highly contagious. City building is not always optimal or doable but its not often resisted either. Regardless, I probably have a too broad definition of civilization for my criticism.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 19, 2011
at 04:11 PM

if birth control were accessible we wouldn't be having this conversation. Women who have choices don't have children when there isn't enough food to go around.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:50 PM

And yes, nature has not 'ultimately failed to date, but the fact that we're even talking about the possibility of ultimate failure is telling. i find it disturbing that the fact that life on earth has not completely ended is depicted as a success. I would hope we aspire to loftier goals.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:47 PM

And there IS a distinction between civilization and the excesses of civilization. Industrial civilization is that excess. It accelerates civilizations destruction. the fertile crescent used to be, well, fertile. It had soil and huge stands of pine forests. and now? as you can see, the birthplace of civilization is destroyed. So, civilization itself IS a problem, industrial civilization is just an accelerant.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:32 PM

i can agree with this. We should have the right to be able to pursue good nutrition. But right now, for many poor people the world over, that is not the case.

0e2772604bdb3627525b42d77340538b

(953)

on August 19, 2011
at 03:23 PM

Respectfully, nutrition is not a right. It's a need, but not a right. There are all sorts of 'ifs' in life, many of which lead to bad outcomes if you don't get it. For example, IF you don't have clothes in an intemperate climate, you will likely suffer and/or die from exposure. Is clothing, then, a basic human right? If we cannot provide clothing for ourselves, how then do we get it? I agree it shouldn't be provided by government - my point is that anything that potentially must be provided by another person cannot be a 'right'. Pursuing it is a right. Having it isn't.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

hope this helps clarify. And as for your last question, contrary to popular belief, you CAN use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. if he has a sledghammer, will that not work to take down the house? so what problems are you having with using industrial technology to take down industrial civilization?

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

The DGR community defines civilization as "a culture — that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts — that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities, with cities being defined — so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on — as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life."

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

Joe: civilization: 'an inescapable component of humanity as we know it'... really? did you know that there are humans alive TODAY who are hunter gatherers? They have technologies (fire by friction, snares, etc), they have ideas, and they have art. But they don't have civilization. So you're missing something i think. I gotta break this into smaller posts...

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 02:58 PM

AuH2Ogirl: i don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees. Nutrition IS one of the most basic human rights. If you can't eat well, you die or get sick enough until you want to die. One of the problems with industrial civilization is that it forces us to be dependent on 'someone else' for nutrition. It's a classic abusive relationship in which the abuser makes the victim dependent upon them for their life. So, the short answer to your question is: nutrition shouldn't be provided by the government.

0e2772604bdb3627525b42d77340538b

(953)

on August 19, 2011
at 11:37 AM

Please explain how something which, in some cases, must be provided by someone else can be a human right.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 05:39 PM

She's one of three authors in this book, all of them worse than her. But even her stuff is bad, much worse than TVM. I keep having to stop and be like WTF why does she keep changing the subject?

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:32 PM

I thought the writing in The Vegetarian Myth was excellent. (The content was intermittently excellent and frustratingly naive.) Is the writing style in the latest book different, or were you also put off by the style in TVM?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:20 PM

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/03/lierre-keith-gets-a-cayenne-laced-pie-in-the-face-during-san-francisco-book-fair-speech.html

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:20 PM

Weird that no one has mentioned the pie-in-the-face incident from that conference a year or so ago.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:02 PM

I just checked and my two non-fiction books, Tim Ferris 4 hour body and Art deVany's book don't have it enabled, but all my crappy .99/$2 books do.

F1b39d4f620876330312f4925bd51900

(4090)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:57 PM

I totally agree. As I read the Vegetarian Myth, when she went off on a tangent, I just skimmed, waiting for her to get back on track. She is an angry woman. Bitter even. I didn't like that about the book.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 03:19 PM

yeah only some books have it though. I would have been even more pissed if this anti-capitalist book didn't have it though.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:15 PM

Oh wow! Neat! I will have to check my books for loaning capabilities. I don't think many people want my historical romance mysteries though. :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 03:08 PM

there are some Kindle books that have loaning enabled and I just send an invite to your email. Once it's accepted I lose the book and you gain it for a few weeks, then it disappears from your Kindle and goes back to mine. LOL

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:05 PM

You can share Kindle books? How?

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on August 18, 2011
at 12:56 PM

@dunc, you contradict yourself. You find libertarian views "abhorrent," then you opine "live and let live," which is a libertarian view.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 18, 2011
at 12:22 PM

suicidal tendencies Hippie Killer.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 18, 2011
at 10:20 AM

Proof that eating meat makes you violent...

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19235)

on August 18, 2011
at 10:20 AM

Proof that eating meat makes you violent.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 03:32 AM

well I don't link to her book anymore on my blog. I think it's great that it helped some people, but at this point there are hundreds of blogs on the internet with the same (and better) info that are not written by people advocating violence

D487a55cb4b4269affd3b298fe6fedac

(78)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:30 AM

I hope people don't make it political. I was just kinda disappointed in her. Yes I kinda knew her politics and thought the feminism stuff in her book was a little ridiculous(and I am a feminist) But now I don't think I could recommend her book to family or use it as a resource in debate with vegi friends. If people did any research on her they would think I am crazy and most likely not even give vegetarian myth a chance.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:45 AM

LOL Melissa! I see what you mean about the politics but I think there is a discussion to be had about heavily promoting someone's work (the Vegetarian Myth) when they also hold some very controversial ideas. Does this recent work negate her previous work? Should we continue to promote her ideas so heavily given this latest endeavor of hers? Maybe we can find a way to talk about this in a more general sense and not focus on the politics?

4bf5827bfb7df85c5b4b485db0945e64

(1386)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:45 AM

I'm glad whisper brought this to my attention! I thought Lierre had that sort of personality. It's give me a more well-rounded view of her.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:16 AM

oops i mean this scene http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HigxGvmHEdQ

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:13 AM

now I have the Army of the 12 Monkeys accordion theme stuck in my head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rDK1qdc9-Y

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:12 AM

So sad to read this... I have recommended TVM to so many people.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 02:06 AM

this is probably going to get closed because it's political. However, someone else can close it. I hope people will see this and see Lierre for who she really is.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:04 AM

Someone downvoted this? I think is a great discussion item for us. At least leave an explanation of why you think this is inappropriate or stupid or whatever. Man/Woman up already and speak your mind!

  • D487a55cb4b4269affd3b298fe6fedac

    asked by

    (78)
  • Views
    1.8K
  • Last Activity
    1257D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

9 Answers

17
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 18, 2011
at 01:31 AM

had to LOL at this quote from the site: "The goal of DGR is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet."

this is the stuff i thought about when i got high a lot in my freshman year of high school.

pardon me for being older, sober & cynical!

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

jakey: it is an overwhelming goal isn't it? does that make it unworthy to you? is it not a noble cause?

10
485bcefe7f1f7a6df1a293a826bf6137

on August 18, 2011
at 01:48 AM

Blah, blah, blah. Typical of those who cry about the rich taking advantage of the poor, and then push for policies that hurt far more of the poor they claim to care so much about.

I'm glad that Keith came to a realization about vegetarianism, but she still has silly, utopian visions of the world that can never exist. Like it or not, civilization is here to stay, and adults learn to make the best of it.

8
A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

on August 18, 2011
at 02:37 AM

As I read the excerpts, the more interesting question is what causes people with some valid concerns come to this sort of endpoint?

The notions seem dumb. There is no distinction made between civilization and the excesses of civilization. By painting civilization as putting us right this very moment in a completely hopeless state, discredits the dynamic, flourishing resilience of nature that has not ultimately failed to date.

And it raises the question, What is civilization really? An inescapable component of humanity as we know it. The best definition I've seen for technology, for example, is ideas + art. Ideas and art, so human isn't it? Again, I don't sense a distinction of our basic expressions of humanity with unwise excess. There is a more discrete set of historical accidents that were the impetus behind many of today's problems, not just the fact that humans continue to harness that which surrounds them.

Also, how are they dismantling a system while making full use of the system in all its technological and economic glory?

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

The DGR community defines civilization as "a culture — that is, a complex of stories, institutions, and artifacts — that both leads to and emerges from the growth of cities, with cities being defined — so as to distinguish them from camps, villages, and so on — as people living more or less permanently in one place in densities high enough to require the routine importation of food and other necessities of life."

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:47 PM

And there IS a distinction between civilization and the excesses of civilization. Industrial civilization is that excess. It accelerates civilizations destruction. the fertile crescent used to be, well, fertile. It had soil and huge stands of pine forests. and now? as you can see, the birthplace of civilization is destroyed. So, civilization itself IS a problem, industrial civilization is just an accelerant.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

hope this helps clarify. And as for your last question, contrary to popular belief, you CAN use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. if he has a sledghammer, will that not work to take down the house? so what problems are you having with using industrial technology to take down industrial civilization?

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:16 PM

"did you know that there are humans alive TODAY who are hunter gatherers?" I suppose I'd look at those as exceptions. The grander sweep of historical trends seems to show civilization as something highly contagious. City building is not always optimal or doable but its not often resisted either. Regardless, I probably have a too broad definition of civilization for my criticism.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:19 PM

I disagree industrial civilization is that excess. It's just another trend within the larger phenomena of civlization of which you cannot assign a moral grade. YEs of course there are terrible excesses associated with industrial civilization, but so too with every other civilizaition. Sometimes the excesses are the very undoing of that civilization, but that doesn't mean the undoing of the civilization for some idealized more basic order is the best option.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:13 PM

Joe: civilization: 'an inescapable component of humanity as we know it'... really? did you know that there are humans alive TODAY who are hunter gatherers? They have technologies (fire by friction, snares, etc), they have ideas, and they have art. But they don't have civilization. So you're missing something i think. I gotta break this into smaller posts...

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:08 AM

And i don't understand how you could see hunter gatherers as the exceptions. since we hundreds of thousands of years ago, we have been hunter gatherers. only this last ten thousand have some of us branched off into something entirely different. Also, i just wanted to thank you for having a real and respectful conversation. i think too many people immediately slam the door on 'radicals' just because they have different opinions. thank you joe.

A2fe5bbd09c7804fd321e9e9a9f9d199

(1614)

on August 19, 2011
at 06:20 PM

I mean a purposeful undoing

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:50 PM

And yes, nature has not 'ultimately failed to date, but the fact that we're even talking about the possibility of ultimate failure is telling. i find it disturbing that the fact that life on earth has not completely ended is depicted as a success. I would hope we aspire to loftier goals.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:06 AM

well we'll have to agree to disagree it seems. i see civilization and it's necessary agriculture as inherent attacks on nature. you are no longer a part of nature as a civilized person. you destroy nature for your benefit alone. Example: i want this acre near me turned plowed under so that i can only grow corn there to feed myself. This is directly opposed to hunter gatherers who interact with and build relationships with other animals and plants to form a mutually beneficial ecosystem.

6
37673aedfb7173472f73074b84f07079

(85)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:58 AM

I'll go out on a limb and still recommend her previous book. I found it very useful in my transition from 25 years of vegetarianism. I think it's possible to agree and disagree with someone at the same time, and still view them as credible (full disclosure: I do agree with her generally about civilization...). I haven't read this new book, just a few excerpts, so can't form an opinion, and wonder how others can dismiss it outright without reading it. I don't know, when I look around, i see a world in flames. Of course, Eades does not believe in climate change. Plenty of people seem to find him still relevant (myself included). And a few prominent "ancestral" commentators have libertarian and reactionary views that I find abhorrent, but you know, live and let live...

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on August 18, 2011
at 12:56 PM

@dunc, you contradict yourself. You find libertarian views "abhorrent," then you opine "live and let live," which is a libertarian view.

5
B883e32a79f743ff8fee345567393074

(132)

on August 18, 2011
at 02:18 AM

I agree, that this could and does damage her credibility. I got a little turned off by her to begin with by The Vegetarian Myth, when she was constantly spouting her radical feminism in a book about nutrition. Otherwise besides when she went off topic, I really enjoyed her work.

I am editing my answer because I had another thought that came to mind.

Correct me if I am wrong, because it has been quite awhile since I have read her book. Or maybe it was in one her posts or talks. But doesn't Lierre Kieth talk about how angry, violent, and mean radical vegetarians/vegans tend to be? (I am not saying they are) I remember this coming up at the time that she pied during one of her presentations. It is interesting to remember that, then see her espouse these new ideas, which tend to walk the line towards violent resistance. If these ideas become as "mainstream" or at the very least the public becomes more aware of this new project of hers. If they think one idea of hers is cuckoo, the more likely they are to discredit everything else, regardless of its credibility or not.

F1b39d4f620876330312f4925bd51900

(4090)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:57 PM

I totally agree. As I read the Vegetarian Myth, when she went off on a tangent, I just skimmed, waiting for her to get back on track. She is an angry woman. Bitter even. I didn't like that about the book.

5
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 02:01 AM

I got disillusioned with her when I went to see Derrick Jensen, her best friend, talk and he told us we should blow up dams. Bad idea. He said non-violent resistance was a waste of time.

I just bought the book and will try to review it soon. I'm 25% way through now, which is a major accomplishment since their writing styles are so awful. I think it's ironic that I had to pay $13 for an anti-capitalist book...if anyone wants to loan it from me on Kindle after I'm done, let me know.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:05 PM

You can share Kindle books? How?

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 03:15 PM

Oh wow! Neat! I will have to check my books for loaning capabilities. I don't think many people want my historical romance mysteries though. :)

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 05:39 PM

She's one of three authors in this book, all of them worse than her. But even her stuff is bad, much worse than TVM. I keep having to stop and be like WTF why does she keep changing the subject?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 03:19 PM

yeah only some books have it though. I would have been even more pissed if this anti-capitalist book didn't have it though.

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:32 PM

I thought the writing in The Vegetarian Myth was excellent. (The content was intermittently excellent and frustratingly naive.) Is the writing style in the latest book different, or were you also put off by the style in TVM?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 18, 2011
at 03:08 PM

there are some Kindle books that have loaning enabled and I just send an invite to your email. Once it's accepted I lose the book and you gain it for a few weeks, then it disappears from your Kindle and goes back to mine. LOL

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:02 PM

I just checked and my two non-fiction books, Tim Ferris 4 hour body and Art deVany's book don't have it enabled, but all my crappy .99/$2 books do.

3
1a3337fd99be013abdbbb0a21de6ce60

on August 19, 2011
at 11:31 AM

As a person who lived the 100 mile diet north of the 54 parallel and a professional in the food industry for over 17 years I came to understand the precarious nature of our food system and now little people understood it. Lierre's book Vegetarian Myth is one of the few book I have read actually looks at the issues. It is a great book. I don't not think that the DGR book in any way hurts her credibility or is off track. Nothing happens in a bubble. While doing the 100 mile diet it I became painfully aware that very few people would have the resources to live as I was and that the social economic and political issue around food are very much unjust. There is a great deal injustice going on. IN 1995 the United Nation agreed that having nutritional food in a human right yet more than a 1/3 to 1/2 of the world does not have access to it. Hearing/reading things that make use feel uncomfortable does not make them wrong. Being listen about injustice is.

-Seymour Lyphe RAGE - Radio Against Global Ecocide

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 19, 2011
at 04:11 PM

if birth control were accessible we wouldn't be having this conversation. Women who have choices don't have children when there isn't enough food to go around.

0e2772604bdb3627525b42d77340538b

(953)

on August 19, 2011
at 11:37 AM

Please explain how something which, in some cases, must be provided by someone else can be a human right.

0e2772604bdb3627525b42d77340538b

(953)

on August 19, 2011
at 03:23 PM

Respectfully, nutrition is not a right. It's a need, but not a right. There are all sorts of 'ifs' in life, many of which lead to bad outcomes if you don't get it. For example, IF you don't have clothes in an intemperate climate, you will likely suffer and/or die from exposure. Is clothing, then, a basic human right? If we cannot provide clothing for ourselves, how then do we get it? I agree it shouldn't be provided by government - my point is that anything that potentially must be provided by another person cannot be a 'right'. Pursuing it is a right. Having it isn't.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 02:58 PM

AuH2Ogirl: i don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees. Nutrition IS one of the most basic human rights. If you can't eat well, you die or get sick enough until you want to die. One of the problems with industrial civilization is that it forces us to be dependent on 'someone else' for nutrition. It's a classic abusive relationship in which the abuser makes the victim dependent upon them for their life. So, the short answer to your question is: nutrition shouldn't be provided by the government.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 19, 2011
at 03:32 PM

i can agree with this. We should have the right to be able to pursue good nutrition. But right now, for many poor people the world over, that is not the case.

32785f16435100045471c0cf19740829

on August 20, 2011
at 01:11 AM

good point melissa. hunter gatherers know this as well. it is common for women to abort pregnancies when they know the tribe cannot feed another person. Bottom line is we have WAY overshot the earth's carrying capacity for humans. make of that what you will

3
A95770dd1cb626620429df3ecf19eb9f

on August 18, 2011
at 12:19 PM

She hasn't got to worry. The planet will save itself as usual. Probably not with us. wait.

0
Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 18, 2011
at 01:22 AM

It sounds pointless. I don't think anyone comes in on her side. Veg is supposed to be about love and peace, not literal soup Nazis.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!