By David Futrelle
There have been a lot of terrible things said in recent days about environmentalists in general and Greta Thunberg in particular. Even our dear impeachable president got into the action, mocking the 16-year-old climate activist in a tweet that Thunberg quickly appropriated ahs her new Twitter bio. Meanwhile, a host of creepy online commenters suggested that Thunberg just needed a good spanking.
But the most unhinged attack on Thunberg I’ve seen so far comes not from some anonymous Tweeter with four followers and an anime avatar but from a writer for The Federalist, Sumantra Maitra, who argues that “Saint Greta” has become the Joan of Arc of a new pagan cult of environmentalism that is trying “not only to turn back time but essentially to destroy the entire current edifice” of Judeo-Christian civilization itself. “The pagan barbarians from the north,” he writes ominously, “are back circling outside the citadel.”
He’s especially perturbed by the protest group “Extinction Rebellion,” which he describes as
an apocalyptic cult that wants to radically end every thing around you, from your private cars to the burgers you eat and the plastic chairs in your yard. It is a cult that was formed after its founder took psychedelic drugs … Members have blocked D.C. and London intersections, “twerking” the way people in a pre-civilized era would perform a fertility dance to pray to Gaia.
And above it all, Maitra writes, floats the spirit of the pagan “Saint Greta, our perpetual teen of sorrow,” whom he compares, in what he sees as a devastating blow, to Joan of Arc — apparently forgetting that Joan wasn’t the product of paganism but of the Judea-Christian civilization he is purportedly defending.
To Maitra , the anger in her voice during her recent speech to the United Nations was evidence of an “emotional meltdown.” Yet, he laments, she was “hailed … as a brave savior as well as a vulnerable, autistic teen who shouldn’t be bullied.” (Evidently he’s a bit chagrined that anyone would speak up against bullying.)
And so, Maitra complains, the allegedly rational forces of climate change denial — sorry, “skepticism” — find themselves up against “barbarians” engaged in
Sexualized dances, psychedelic hallucinogens, worshiping nature, confessing sins in pagan animism, worshiping purified teen saints, and throwing them up on an altar, bereft of their childhood, to promote a greater cause. …
The strangest part of the whole rant is Maitra’s weird paean to old-timey Stalinism. Unlike the new environmentalist pagans, Maitra notes, the old left understood that the earth was there for humans to exploit as ruthlessly as they could. And there’s no way that Stalin would have put up with those awful environmentalist twerkers!
For all the Marxists’ faults, the old left at least wanted to conquer nature instead of turning subservient to it. Of course, that went to its own extremes, but one can imagine Joseph Stalin putting all twerking climate fanatics as mentally ill people in a forced labor camp to build railroads in Siberia.
Apparently Maitra wishes he could do the same. Why is it always the ones who rant about the barbarians who turn out to be the least civilized?
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
OT: An interview held by Toronto police with Toronto van killer Alek Minassian has been publicly released. Amongst other things Minassian claims he had contact with Elliot Rodger, and that the attack ended because a drink smashed into his windshield, and he had been afraid of crashing as a result.
Sorry, I didn’t see that Jenora already posted about this.
@tim gueguen:
Not a problem, I posted it on the other thread (which seemed more appropriate as it was already about incels).
He sounds like quite a piece of work.
@Eddie
You need it, you can talk to me at any time – I don’t sleep over much, so I’m usually about. Either by DM on twitter or David has my permission to give you the email I use here.
Coming up on a decade clean for me.
These people: Greta Thunberg wants to destroy the world!
Also these people: The world is here to be exploited and strip-mined dry until we’re choking on our own excrement! We’re rational!
“The Majority Report” often displays and comments on clips from Fox News (similar to this blog now that I think of it), in a recent one there is a panel of three and Michael Knowles goes on a rant against Greta Thunberg. He claims she is mentally ill, autistic, and being manipulated by her parents and the left. One of the other two suddenly demands he immediately apologizes for insulting a child (good on him).
Though the part that infuriated me was him pretending that “the climate hysteria movement is not about SCIENCE, if it were about science it would be led by scientists”, and that Thunberg’s speech was somehow anti-science. Obviously the movement against climate change IS lead by scientists and motivated by scientific data. The only reason environmentalists would put a child upfront is because somehow the scientists were not convincing enough; i.e. logos persuasion failed, so they tried pathos. Unfortunately many in the current republican party know they can convince a few people by confidently telling obvious lies and hoping that not everyone listening will double check anything.
@Moggie
That video of Angela Merkel is solid gold. How often I’ve wanted to roll my eyes at some effin’ KGB agent — but can’t, due to ambassadorial protocol.
May I post this on here? Make it go viral
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwim-52-sPPkAhUIBGMBHbmaA9MQzPwBCAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.desmog.co.uk%2F2019%2F09%2F06%2Fclimate-science-deniers-planning-coordinated-european-misinformation-campaign-leaked-documents-reveal&psig=AOvVaw0-YSO3_iC-PBuoF-Flz0Lf&ust=1569755343444373
I’m starting to wonder if there’s a motivation for anti-environmentalism more in line with mainstream alt-right “concerns”.
Nature is often associated in imagination with feminine ideas (“Mother Nature”, “Gaia”, etc.), so perhaps they feel that if they aren’t exploiting the environment with complete disregard and contempt, they’re being cucked by that tree.
Far fetched? I wish.
Speaking of the environment…
I think one of the less attractive elements of veganism can be the gloating over things like dairy farms going bust. People of course do have livelihoods they need to maintain.
But we think the future of farming, and food generally, has to involve a switch to plant based. That’e the only sustainable solution, both ecologically and economically.
And it seems the meat industry recognises what side of history they need to be on; because they went along with this…
https://www.plantbasednews.org/news/uk-meat-market-animal-rebellion-fight-government-climate-change?
Alan wrote:
I don’t really follow vegan/animal rights discourse, but I do often follow agricultural issues (here in Finland) and opinions from farmers. Our local agriculture is quite heavily focused on dairy and meat production, and climate change is currently a *very* prominent topic in national discourse.
There’s a lot of this kind of sentiment that farming (supposedly, unlike any other industry) is being blamed for carbon and nutrient pollution, and specifically, that the blame is being cast on farmers personally (as opposed to the general populace that eats food). This always seems weird to me because I don’t really see this kind of blaming in mainstream media (and it doesn’t make much sense either).
Then of course some farmers have this deep seated suspicion that climate change is a hoax perpetuated for whatever nefarious purposes. Some claim that climate conservation is a sneaky cover for “an ideology”, apparently alluding to the animal rights movement. Others talk like the whole environmentalist movement is driven by sheer hatred of farmers, and specifically Finnish farmers, going so far as to claim that some nebulous “elites” somehow stand to gain from the wholesale liquidation of Finnish farmer population.
What I gather from all this is that there’s a lot of economic anxiety among farmers, making them vulnerable to personal offense and conspiracy theorizing. There’s been a constant decline in how many farmers the industry can support nationally. More and more farmers are being driven out of business by increasing competition, and this process would be presumably accelerated if animal/feed production was swapped to plant-based human food production, which doesn’t involve as much farm work per hectare.
@ lumipuma
That’s the same here. Suicide through economic hardship is a big issue with farmers. They also have easier access to firearms of course.
https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/9/642
Farms are going under at quite a rate; and a report suggests that half of farms could go bust if we no-deal Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/15/half-of-uk-farms-could-fail-after-no-deal-brexit-report-warns
It’s also well known that supermarkets rip dairy farms off to the point they’re often operating at a loss.
https://www.farmdrop.com/blog/how-supermarkets-ruined-dairy/
Also 23% of ‘milk’ sold in the UK is non-dairy plant based alternatives.
So whilst some farmers here show the same paranoia and hostility you mention; others are making common cause. There’s even a farmers branch of Extinction Rebellion now. They can see the writing is on the wall for traditional farming; so they’re looking to the future and how to adapt to survive.
From the animal rights point of view its a carrot and stick approach.
Encourage the more enlightened, and forward thinking, farmers to work with us; use economic pressure on the ones that won’t. Undercover reporting is the best weapon there. Previously was done with an eye on prosecution; but now it’s all a matter of PR.
Supermarkets are much more aware of growing consumer pressure for animal welfare. Show mistreatment of animals and the supermarkets drop farms like a stone; and because oftentimes the contracts are for exclusive supply; that quickly puts a farm out of business. And as all farms mistreat animals; it’s always easy to get compromising material.
Actually, that sounds great! Where can I sign up?
I’m joining a new cohousing community. I’ve been active in the common meals planning groups. Our member survey showed that at least a third of our members identify as vegetarian, and 2-3 as vegan. I’ve been strongly advocating that every other meal at least should be strictly vegetarian and that if we made more vegan dishes, we’d be more likely to accommodate more people with various dietary restrictions.
It’s been interesting how much pushback I’ve gotten. Like, decentering meat as the focal point of the meal is apparently quite threatening. I was met with slippery slope arguments and misinterpretations that I was advocating alternating vegetarian and all-meat menus. Sustainability is one of our stated values, and it’s been one of the 4 main committees in the planning process. Plant-based menus makes sense in so many ways. I say this as someone who is neither vegetarian nor vegan, but I get really annoyed by my fellow omnivores who are unwilling to take even a baby step away from their dietary comfort zones.
@Solecism
I’m a vegetarian and I’ve noticed a similar resistance whenever I go places. So many restaurants don’t have any meat free options, or only have small salads, and when I’m invited to events I mention my dietary restrictions, but often am met with confusion. I’ve been a vegetarian for years, and even before that I rarely ate meat, so having meat in every meal is a rather unusual concept to me.
A lot of people are also confused that I don’t eat gelatin, then are disgusted when I explain what gelatin actually is, as most people don’t seem to know.
Oh, and congratulations on your new community!
@Naglfar:
In some cases, it might be more than just a matter of “dietary comfort zones”. Some people find very few vegetables palatable, aside from very bland ones like potatoes and rice. And none of them likely fancy a meal of almost pure starch …
If your vegetarian menu options include plant-based faux meats (and these have adequate protein), though, then problem more-or-less solved.
@Naglfar, thanks! I am really excited about it. But also kinda tired by the effort of pushing back against the classism, ableism, etc of well-meaning white, upper middle class progressives. But it’s a great experience in consciously creating community, improving my praxis, and practicing democracy on the ground in daily life.
Yeah, I have friends who are vegetarian and vegan, plus so many of us have assorted dietary restrictions for health reasons. Sometimes they intersect really badly, but that’s opportunities for learning and ever more creative solutions. Mostly it’s frustrating to want to go out with friends, and the vegan once again has options of french fries and salad and that’s about it. It sucks, and it’s not okay. I went to a vegan cafe for dinner last week near a cohousing meeting, and my vegan friend shared her critique of the place as being a very poor entry point to vegan cuisine for the average person. She’s not wrong.
Not surprised at general ignorance about the origins of food products like gelatin. When so many people haven’t actually seen vegetables growing in the ground, or fruit on the tree/vine/cane, and associate meat with styrofoam and plastic rather than muscle harvested from animal carcasses, it’s hard for them to understand the less obvious animal derivatives. Such a disconnect between food in the store and the farms it comes from.
My mom at intervals has raised calves to steers then sent them to the butcher to be slaughtered and processed, most recently this year. But even with that direct experience of turning living animal into so many packages of meat cuts, she still uses euphemisms and stays away from her hobby farm when the steer is picked up, She recognizes the ethical problems inherent with the whole process but doubles down on why vegetarianism is a no-go. She has to look away at critical moments to keep participating in the meat production system and then rationalizes why it’s the better, more right lifestyle. Sigh.
There’s a reason state laws prohibiting visually documenting our meat production system are proliferating like flies on a corpse. People don’t want to know the cruelty at such massive scale. They don’t want to confront their complicity and benefit from this, anymore than us white people really want to truly understand how we benefit from centuries of systematic oppression and violence toward people of color.
Anyway, I read this book by Peter Block on community building. He advocates centering the most marginalized. Thinking about this in terms of community building through shared meals made me want to center vegans and vegetarians, rather than simply tolerate with a “separate but equal” double entree menu. It’s a fundamental philosophical change that people seem to have trouble grasping. But I am a fierce advocate and will keep arguing.
I just won the argument about pricing structure. The original proposal was full price for adults and half price for children within a specific age bracket (6-12, I think), with older children being counted as adults I guess, and young children free. I think that’s bullshit because there are plenty of adults who won’t eat a whole dinner plate of food, and plenty of kids who will. Age brackets are just so arbitrary and don’t recognize individual differences, not to mention conflating teenagers with adulthood when it’s convenient.
I proposed instead a large plate/small plate dichotomy. And trust people to pick the size that is most appropriate at that time. Apparently, at the kitchen meeting I missed, they discussed my large/small plate idea and decided it wasn’t viable because how would it be monitored? Dude, we do not need to police our fellow residents. And if we feel that someone is violating the policy by paying small plate and eating a large plate worth of food, then there’s a larger problem that needs to be explored. Why don’t we trust that if appropriate information is provided about the distinction between plate sizes that people will make the right choices, and will actually be paying proportional to the amount consumed, rather than by age, which has the potential to hit the elderly with small appetites and budgets disproportionately?
So I have hope of establishing a cohousing culture that centers plant-based dishes as the heart of community meals. Among many other personal agenda items. I guess this is the main form of my activism right now. Along with my antiracism work.
Now where is the occult, pagan dancing taking place? Does it involve costumes?
@Surplus to Requirements
I hear what you’re saying. And we have one person that I know of in our cohousing community who basically can’t do fiber, which rules out most vegetables. But vegans get really tired of french fries and iceberg being the only options on the menu, which happens a hella lot more than omnivores who don’t find most vegetables palatable. And certainly “most” is not the same as “all.” Compare the outlier you’re describing versus the norm that I am describing. I’m not advocating complete role reversal here, just a better balance.
I also find that there’s some degree of toxic masculinity tied into attitudes toward vegetables along the lines of “green is what my food eats,” “real men eat red meat,” etc. Plant-based faux meats are certainly becoming more widespread and more accepted, but they also reinforce meat being the centerpiece of a meal, rather than an accent.
Again, I say all of this as someone who eats meat. Right now I have a freezer full of beef from my mom, though I vastly prefer eggs and seafood. Plus, I find most vegetables not only palatable but tasty, and I love cooking and trying new ways of cooking things to make them even tastier, or tasty for someone who normally wouldn’t like them. But I also recognize the unsustainability of so much meat consumption and the extremely unethical and unhumane meat production system in the United States, along with the extreme pollution and the environmental, economic, health, and social costs of large-scale industrialized slaughter.
I am sympathetic and supportive of my vegan friends, but I will never be vegan because I am not willing to draw my ethical boundary at the divide between animal and plant/fungal lifeforms. Both are important to me, and in many ways, I consider the destruction of plant ecosystems and individuals hundreds of years old far more inethical than animal husbandry as such. I am more likely to prioritize the life of an oak tree over the life of a honeybee, and if I am willing to use that oak for firewood and construction materials, then I am also willing to use honey and wax and keep bees for their many functions (agriculture is so heavily dependent on pollinators!) and harvestable materials.
Spending more time with the vegans I know has made me reflect on my food and clothing choices more regularly, in the same way that not owning a car and buying into a carshare fleet has made me reflect more on my transportation choices. This has been good for me, rather than blithely taking the easy path without consideration.
For the intetested, the Lancet ( which is one of the oldest medical publishers, along with one of the most influential ) is leading the charge on behalf of the medical profession on climate change. It commissioned what is known as a round table expert review into sustainable diets and the effects of diet on land use change, which is the number one driver of climate change globally.
Intetestingly, although it came out with a dietary plate that was principally plant-based, it turns out that eating a small amount of animal protein isnt environmentally unsound. They provide a detailed breakdown of the amounts we can eat to stay within planetary boundaries
@ solecism
It says everything about meat and dairy production that it’s becoming illegal to document farming practices. So called Ag-Gag laws.
There are some legal challenges to Ag-Gag though. Law journal article here:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1251&context=delpf
Unfortunately, as much as Ayn Rand and Mao Zedong wanted to believe otherwise, one can’t change reality through force of will.
Alan:
That sounds impressive. I don’t know the Finnish figure, but conventional dairy is very strongly established here. Recently, however, there’s been a lot of media hype on legume and oat based mincemeat substitutes launched by various companies.
Oddly enough, our leading dairy company Valio decided to jump on the “vegetarian” bandwagon by launching a milk-based meat substitute, called MiFU. It’s almost like any other meat substitute, except it’s not vegan (or particularly eco-friendly). Incidentally, Valio is co-owned by Finnish dairy farmers…
Such an appropriate metaphor 🙂
Huh? Is it really worthwhile to crash individual farmers, if you can’t change the system?
Or rather, starting from the assumption that all animal farms mistreat animals, I suppose you could use that shocking footage to persuade the public against consuming animal products, rather than singling out specific farmers?
@ lumipuma
Indeed; it’s a multi-faceted strategy.
Produce the footage for public consumption.
https://www.kinderworld.org/videos/dairy-industry/udder-flaming-cows/
Or like this documentary here.
https://surgeactivism.org/landofhopeandglory
But note that the reportage is specifically from the supposed most ‘ethical’ farms; the ones that supply the high end supermarkets and have the Red Tractor mark. That’s meant to signify they have the best practice for animal welfare.
So the idea is to show that even that involves systemic abuse.
Red Tractor is all BS of course. Farms actually get to choose which companies do the inspections to qualify, and make appointments for them to attend.
But also to target specific farms. The idea being that the supermarkets drop them and Red Tractor have to expel them. And by going after the biggest and most high profile the aim is to make it economically unviable to be involved in meat and dairy production.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6005311/Red-Tractor-UK-food-standards-scheme-breaches-farm-inspections-arent-shown.html
Alan:
Is the aim here to destroy Red Tractor, or to force them to start enforcing some genuine animal welfare practice? I can see that animal rights people wouldn’t necessarily be thrilled on the latter, but the former seems kind of petty?
Perhaps the ultimate goal is to prevent any marketing of “ethical” meat so that conscientious consumers can be persuaded to just quit meat partially or altogether?
How is it possible to economically destroy farms by discrediting them from participating in the Red Tractor program? Because they made some major investments on animal welfare and now can’t monetize on that? Seems a bit…inhumane.
BTW, when a farm gets dropped from Red Tractor, is it typically because they were exposed for violating the (poorly enforced) rules? Or because practice according to the rules still looks disgusting when exposed to consumers, and RT wants to pretend it’s just that one farm?
@ lumipuna
Pretty much. Ostensibly it can be promoted, to certain demographics and media, as merely improving animal welfare; so as not to seem too extreme.
Really though the message is that animal exploitation is innately cruel and there’s no acceptable level.
Suppliers need the Red Tractor accreditation to sell to the more upmarket, and profitable, outlets. If they lose it they have to compete with cheaper foreign suppliers for the low end market. That’s often not viable. Might change after Brexit of course.
Yes; they’ll throw an ‘errant’ farm to the wolves; for PR purposes.
It’s all very hypocritical though. As mentioned, the farms pay for the accreditation, and can choose which company they employ to assess. So perhaps not the most objective or thorough testing.
And sort of related; if you can tolerate me rambling on for nearly two hours about activism and the law, here’s how I spent my weekend.
https://www.facebook.com/dina.aherne/videos/10157285376030552/
Related: Someone made this video, which shows Greta Thunberg’s speech made into a death metal song.
For some actual metal with environmental themes, I recommend Gojira (especially the album From Mars to Sirius).