Vegetarian Failure

Jesus is incredibly right.  Even Ists say morality-based vegetarians are incredibly wrong, definitionally wrong.  Despite this, many people end up thinking moral vegetarians must be at least a little bit right.  

What people like Savitri Devi were saying is that Christianity is a foreign element which broke down societies (gasp!  So surprising!).  However, they were not saying that Christianity was a tool of decay, as is correct, but rather that (Jesusian, the kind most people think is the only kind) Christianity was bad in much the same way that Jesusians think that people who say they do things for the fictional character in the red pajamas (Satan; duh) are definitely proof of the badness of being against the good fictional character (Jesus).  It is their version of an incorrect mental trap (dialectic) into which they've fallen.  

Such people (Devi) feel that Christianity is very evil, because it elevated human things even if those human things—such as what is called homosexuality—were not for societies good.  Like, this really great person and this really bad person could be considered the same worth because they were both humans.  Along with this, it can be felt that the schism between humans and animals is unfair, because animals that were really good or really healthy were devalued, while humans that were really bad or really unhealthy were correspondingly valued.  

(That is the philosophy described by Savitri Devi.  She cites some of the spiritual dearth of Bangism, and like some modern Jesusians uses that to justify ridiculous counterfactual crap.  Devi calls Adolf Hitler "the Lightning," but that shows her having been influenced by the narrative that he was a warmaker rather than a repeated attempted war-avoider.  So much like Jesusianism, she sees that mainstream philosophy is ridiculous and so plays right into the hand of her purported enemies while trying to be against them: she was a victim of against what she railed.)  

Unfortunately for moral vegetarians, what they are saying is massively wrong.  Like a person who now thinks they are an independent rabbi-worshiper who is upholding the history of Europe (sic), such a person is a useful idiot (not necessarily because Devi or any given Jesusian is actually not intelligent at all, but because s/he has been tricked into being so useful).  The argument that moral vegetarians offer: that it is wrong to treat humans as different than other forms of life.  What this argument does not take into account is that being alive means prioritizing yourself over many other living things.  

Consider the following illustration: 

…the thing of which to think is that being a living human being means nigh-constantly killing many other types of (microscopically tiny) living things.  Your immune system is regularly killing things which it finds on your skin, which you have breathed, inside little scrapes and cuts you don’t notice, etc.  The very act of breathing kills many things and makes others live.  It means that you are prioritizing your existence over that of others.  So, inefficient, weak, detestable people, as well as efficient, strong, likable people are constantly killing millions of efficient, healthy, strong bacteria, as well as killing inefficient, weak bacteria.  By the time an infant has become a toddler, s/he has killed very many other things.  

If you believe that people like Savitri Devi are correct, that moral vegetarianism is correct, then you must stop all of this mass slaughter: stop breathing for just a minute.  

(Waiting…waiting…letting a minute pass…)  

Still here?  Then I guess you don’t believe that it is wrong to prioritize the existence of some types of life over other types of life (or else you’re a mentally crippled hypocrite—your choice!).  Good, because for anything to be alive—anything at all—it takes things others need or actually kills other things.  

Just like Europeoids had generated thousands of years of nice things in Europe without any help whatsoever from the Middle East, the other side of the dialectic is as bad as, well, the other other side.  Soulless crud (pure evil or just stupidity) does not mean an invisible rabbi is good because he is supposed to be against it.  Even though soulless crud (and/or pure evil and/or stupidity) is not good, it doesn't mean S.R. exists.  Jesus is just stupidity, and saying you have such an imaginary friend justifies a different variety of useful idiots supporting the crud on the other side!  

(S.R. is also pure evil and pure gay, but we'll put that aside for now.  If you're not convinced about the evil part, think about the story of Noah, and how Jesus killed if you thousand infants in this one place in order to punish these people who didn't respect him enough a few thousand miles away.  The character is pure evil--as evil as evil can be.)