Vegetarianism. Part Of The Culture Or A Dead End? - Page 2

Table of contents:

Vegetarianism. Part Of The Culture Or A Dead End? - Page 2
Vegetarianism. Part Of The Culture Or A Dead End? - Page 2

Video: Vegetarianism. Part Of The Culture Or A Dead End? - Page 2

Video: Vegetarianism. Part Of The Culture Or A Dead End? - Page 2
Video: Vegans Vs. Meat Eaters: What Is The Right Diet? | Middle Ground 2023, March

Vegetarianism. Part of the culture or a dead end?

Disputes about the benefits or dangers of vegetarianism have been going on for a long time and, within the framework of the usual argumentation, seem endless. We, in turn, would like to see from a completely different angle what really can underlie this phenomenon.

Speaking about vegetarianism, both its supporters and opponents imply that we are talking about the refusal to eat animal meat or about a complete ban on the use of any products of animal origin, including fur and leather, as required by a more stringent option - veganism.

Disputes about the benefits or dangers of vegetarianism have been going on for a long time and, within the framework of the usual argumentation, seem endless. We, in turn, would like to see from a completely different angle what really can underlie this phenomenon.

Let's take a short historical excursion. Starting its way in the religious traditions of ancient times with the idea of non-violence against living beings (Hinduism with its sacred cow, Buddhism, Jainism, etc.), vegetarianism passed through various philosophical schools, in particular the Pythagoreans with their teachings on the transmigration of souls. Together with the fashion for the colonial style, it revived in England, where the first vegetarian society was founded in the middle of the 19th century, and half a century later, in 1901, it came to Russia - to St. Petersburg.


Influenced by the ethical vegetarianism of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy with his famous statement “For ten years the cow fed you and your children, the sheep clothed and warmed you with its wool. What is their reward for this? Cut your throat and eat? " in pre-revolutionary Russia, vegetarian settlements, schools, canteens were created. With the advent of the new government, the topic of vegetarianism was closed for a long time and again became widespread in the last decades of the twentieth century. Gradually, medical, economic and environmental considerations were added to religious and moral-ethical considerations.

As a result, today a whole list of reasons for those wishing to become vegetarians has formed, we will name just a few of them:

  • On religious grounds related to belief in the transmigration of souls, karma, etc.

  • Out of unwillingness to inflict suffering on animals by killing them for consumption.
  • In the hope of reducing the risk of various diseases - cancer, cardiovascular and others.
  • In order to reduce food costs.
  • For environmental reasons, to reduce the pressure on the environment from large-scale meat production, which is already threatening.
  • To solve the food problem of the overgrown humanity by transferring it to a plant-based diet.
  • In addition, there is still a myth that man is by nature a vegetarian, so he should go back to nature.

So, we see a fairly diverse set of reasons and everyone who wants to become a vegetarian can choose any suitable one from it or come up with some other one of their own. And our task is to find and understand the essence of the phenomenon itself behind all these conscious (mental) rationalizations and explanations.

It is absolutely reliably established that humans, like most of the great apes, are omnivorous and able to eat both plant and animal food. Moreover, it has also been reliably established that cannibalism was inherent in the man of ancient times, which to this day now and then makes itself felt in the form of individual disgusting, but quite regular manifestations. Thus, it is clear that there is no real physiological conditionality of nutrition exclusively on plant foods.

Then where did the urge to stop eating animal meat come from?

To clarify this issue, we will have to turn to those primitive times when early man was just beginning his development and cannibalism was not yet something out of the ordinary. The carriers of the visual vector at that time were skin-visual girls who accompanied men on hunting and warfare, daytime guards of the flock, who simultaneously performed other functions (more on this in the corresponding articles of the website library). It often happened that the skin-visual girl, who missed the predator, herself became its prey, since the flock, forced to flee, abandoned her. Unlike girls, visual boys - and this, due to their physical weakness, was absolutely useless for the flock of ballast - were eaten by an oral cannibal immediately after birth. Hence, the root of the visual vector is fear. The fear of being eaten by a predator is in a visual girland the fear of being eaten by a cannibal is in the visual boy.

And hence the prerequisites for the emergence and development of culture. Were it not for cannibalism, there would not have been a culture that elevates human life to an absolute value!

The fears of the skin-visual girl for her own life and the fears of the visual boy brought out through the desire to preserve life led to a ban on eating their own kind, which served as the starting point for creating a whole system of prohibitions and restrictions that drove our animal essence into the framework of culture. We can say that the whole culture is a visual superstructure over the cannibalism of the "human-animal" in order to preserve human life.

But what does the prohibition mean, with the help of what arguments can you prohibit cannibals from eating their own kind, what makes this prohibition in principle feasible? In addition to the direct order of the leader, who is under the influence of his skin-visual female (for more information about this bundle, read the article "Promotion of culture to the masses or Antisex and Anti-murder"), in order for the ban to be effective, an adequate replacement for the forbidden is needed. And the meat of other animals was the very alternative that allowed humanity to abandon cannibalism in favor of culture.

However, under the extreme pressure of the landscape when it comes to survival, cultural superstructures and prohibitions fly off within days. Numerous facts of both forced hungry cannibalism, known from the history and memoirs of eyewitnesses of not so long-standing events, and everyday life, not associated with the threat of survival and not rare in our days, speak of the insufficient stability of the cultural superstructure itself. It is culture, or rather its development, that is the global universal human task to which the attention of the visual vector should be directed today.

Nevertheless, some of the vegetarians-spectators do not give up hope to move in the direction of refusing to eat animals for the reason that they “feel sorry for the animals” …


In this regard, and as a small digression, let us remind ourselves of the phased development of the physical world, which began with the emergence of inanimate matter and all sorts of metamorphoses before the appearance of the first vegetation. Using the inanimate level as food, the vegetation gradually developed to the state of food for animals, which appeared after this. Each previous level serves as a forage base for the next. Man is the next level above the animal, for him the "food base" is all the previous ones, that is, minerals, plants and edible animals, birds, fish, etc. Refusing to eat meat, a person, as it were, descends to a level lower, thereby making a rollback. And this is outside the logic of development for complication,which is clearly observed in the nature of our world and is its global trend.

If you follow the path "I will not eat animals because I feel sorry for them," then after the animal I will have to give up plant food, because "the plants are also alive, I feel sorry for them too." A person with a visual vector has everything living and animate - "there was a button" … So in terms of survival and development, the path of depriving oneself of food out of pity for food is a path to nowhere.

The most advanced rational vegetarians of today, who have rejected sentimental concern for animals, try to think big and with concern for all of humanity. The flow of analysts about the deplorable state of agriculture in general and animal husbandry in particular, about the irrational use of cultivated areas and cutting down the jungle, about the lack of resources for the growing population of the planet leads them to an unexpected conclusion about the rejection of meat as the only possible way to solve all problems. The conclusion is not at all obvious, despite the fact that all of the above problems have a place to be to one degree or another and require a decisive rethinking by modern society of the entire consumption system in the direction of a reasonable restriction, but not rejection.

Indeed, in the skin phase of human development - in the modern consumer society - there was a strong imbalance, a loss of a sense of proportion in the consumption of everything, and this especially concerns food. Mass obesity of adults and children in the most developed countries of the West (in the United States up to 30% of the population) is already a disaster, and not only at the physical level. Hunger has always spurred a person to development, forcing him to move. A well-fed person, being in abundance, does not want not only to move, but even to think - there is no incentive. Therefore, a culture of food intake is needed, but not in the sense of the beauty of table setting (these are visual pleasant things) and not through vegetarianism, but in the sense of moderation. As you know, vegetarianism by no means excludes this problem, there, too, we often see examples of overeating. Limitation, a sense of proportion are the properties of the skin vector,moderation in consumption must be extended to all through him. The visual vector has completely different properties, its task is culture as the value of human life.

So in the case of caring for humanity, we can again observe an attempt to adjust external considerations to explain our internal desire to refuse the use of animal products.

And this desire itself is due to the not very good state of the visual vector, when it is either not very developed and has not come out of the state of fear, or has gone into fear due to the stress of unrealization. Moreover, the deeper the state of fear, the stricter the vegetarianism up to veganism. At the same time, the fear of the visual vector does not go away, it remains inside, and the transfer of the fear of a living being to be eaten leads to the impossibility of eating meat or fish as food - this would aggravate an already bad state, up to nausea and vomiting. A person in this way adapts to avoid the worst conditions, but explains to himself and others that this is good for health, or that the animal also wants to live, or by taking care of the preservation of the Earth's resources …


As for the vector set typical of vegetarianism, these are, of course, visual people and, first of all, skin-visual girls of any age. Visual fear combined with skin limitation provides all the necessary properties and conditions. Individual skinheads can join the mass of spectators if they are convinced of the great health benefits and benefits for the wallet. Sometimes there will be anal sex guided by their visual girlfriend. Quite often, skin-sound fanatics, in whom the state of fanaticism is primary, fall into vegetarianism and veganism. These can easily do not only without meat, but also without food for forty days, experimenting with waterless dry fasting.

In general, there are no particular problems in the fact that some individual people follow a plant-based diet, if they are more comfortable - good health! In the end, it’s just the body, and that’s not the point. It is regrettable that their visual vector, stuck in vegetarianism, remains in a state of fear and is engaged in stopping suffering instead of going out and experiencing wonderful emotional experiences, directing compassion, empathy and love to their own kind. In other words, the life tasks of people with a visual vector are incomparably greater than the solution to the issue of eating grass or meat.

Returning to the question raised in the title of the article, we can say that vegetarianism has nothing to do with culture, which is all about the value of human life, or the development of mankind. Vegetarianism is, first of all, fear, or rather one of its manifestations, draped with verbal visual lines. Such a deviation that happened in the mainstream of the movement from cannibalism to a developed culture, a small dead end in which frightened spectators huddled in a frightened flock …

I would like to refer to them:

Guys, vegetarians, stop being afraid and squandering the huge potential inherent in the visual vector. We do not call you to become meat-eaters, you can continue your more or less herbivorous existence. Just try to find the strength in yourself to move the curtains and screens that hide the real picture of the world from you. You will see real, not far-fetched tasks where your participation is needed. We are waiting for you at the free online training by Yuri Burlan "System-vector psychology" by Yuri Burlan. Register here.

Popular by topic