MAT CARTER VS LUCY WATSON: THE VEGAN QUESTION

I am becoming increasingly intolerant of vegans and largely due to their intolerance of omnivores. They have become yet another noisy bunch of hobbyists in a contemporary world full of nuisance hobbyists who want everyone else to conform to the rules of their particular hobby. These hobbies, like 'anti-racism', transgenderism, social justice, feminism, veganism etc. have become the replacements for religious zealotry in Leftist secular society, rather like George Orwell predicted when he wrote about 'Hate Week'. The Leftist paradigm is centred on their fanatical hatred for norms based upon Natural Order, which they then project onto the defenders of Natural Order, who are then pilloried, attacked and charged with hatecrimes. This of course is sponsored by the new globalist elites like (((George Soros))). The first stage is always the garnering of social pressure via the funding of lobby groups and media outlets who will carry whatever message the globalists require imprinted on the public consciousness. One current one is that of the aforementioned veganism, and one media platform that is subtly getting it into the public consciousness is that of ITV's This Morning programme, which we have looked at before in relation to the cult of transgenderism.

 

 

 

The video above demonstrates just how insidious the propaganda is, for it is posited as a balanced discussion and debate. Yet the first obvious trick that is so often pulled is that of interiority and exteriority, where the person representing an unfavourable opinion is disprivileged by remaining outside the studio, whereas the one with the favoured opinion is welcomed into the studio. It is a tactic that was regularly employed against Rightist political parties during their period of electoral success ten years ago. The arrangement implicitly demarks who is the outsider figure, as well as him being on the receiving end of a time delay in communications, which makes him look hesitant when answering, which in turn makes him seem either evasive or insincere or perhaps even bumbling. 

 

This is certainly the case in the debate between the farmer Mat Carter and vegan activist and reality TV star Lucy Watson. Carter is a born and bred farmer, who knows his livelihood, whereas Watson is little more than a paid prostitute, who has been given her celebrity position on condition of promoting the globalist agendas. She is thus very articulate, having been trained in public speaking and fed propaganda to disseminate in an articulate manner on a subject she knows nothing about. Carter is of course unused to appearing in front of the cameras, and his nervousness coupled with the aforementioned time delay, makes him seem less than confident in what he is talking about, even though he has spent his entire life in agriculture. Then there is the subtle bias of the hosts, with Phillip Schofield saying the following to Lucy Watson at the 5:48 mark:

 

Why are you calling for everyone to be vegans and not vegetarians? There doesn't seem to be any sort of middle ground here.

 

Notice his eyes: he is remembering a pre-formulated question and statement here. What is the purpose of this question? The purpose is to give a plausible excuse to introduce  the succeeding statement without drawing conscious attention to it. The viewer is thus coerced into accepting that the middle ground is that of vegetarianism without even being consciously aware of it. This is how the Overton Window is incrementally shifted. Schofield also gives out spurious statistics about veganism, claiming that 7% of the UK are now vegans, up from 1% in 2016. He does not state his source, of course, but speaks with the authority afforded him by television. Even according to the Vegan Society itself, which may also be biased due to self-interest, only 1% of the population are vegan, up from 0.46% in 2016. So why the lie in statistics? The lie is to make a typical "You are on the wrong side of history!" assertion, even if, as usual, it is a false one. This is backed up by propaganda throughout the cosy studio discussion about animal cruelty, so the statistics suggest that people are becoming "more moral", which in turn encourages more people to follow suit. Even the slight uptick in veganism, if it really exists, might be explained by immigration from India, where people eat a lot less meat.

 

 

So what about the debate itself? This is a typical Nature versus anti-Nature debate, with the elites in control of the media and the celebrity merry-go-round firmly on the side of anti-Nature. Mat Carter is absolutely right to attempt to get people back in tune with Nature and natural organic living, which the globalist elites know is a very dangerous notion. This is no battery farmer, and he quite rightly wishes to showcase the fact that his animals live a healthy and comfortable life until it is time for slaughter. This is in complete contrast to the horror stories perpetrated by Lucy Watson. There are indeed evil battery farmers around, who ought to be prosecuted, but Carter is not one of them. It ought to have been curious then that he was the one who was attacked, but this is suspiciously never brought into question during the debate. When looking at these sorts of televised debates in general, always ask yourselves the questions: what has been excluded from the debate and why? Just as Mat Carter remains outside of the studio, there are things even beyond him that are left so far outside that they are not even seen. Such themes as a future meat shortage due to third-world overpopulation and the influx of the third-world surplus into the West are completely off-limits. 

 

This is why the subject of animal cruelty is foregrounded, so that yet again a scenario is constructed in which "the feels" trumps reason. What is the reasoned argument? The reasoned argument is that human beings are by Nature omnivorous. Vegans, especially males, have to regularly compensate for the lack of nutrition in their unnatural diet by taking artificial supplements. They will of course try to convince you that this is not the case, in the same way that every bodybuilder tries to convince everyone that he does not take steroids. Just look at the difference in how healthy Mat Carter's skin and hair are in relation to Lucy Watson's - and she has spent hours in make-up for the cameras. A crack habit might also account for her lifeless eyes. It often astonishes me that people allegedly on the Right also push veganism and show little pictures of gentle Uncle Adolf feeding deer fawns by hand. And then I remember that Hitler was a tee-totalling, steak-dodging socialist like George Bernard Shaw, a man of ideology and propaganda and not of Nature at all.

 

This brings us onto why veganism is being pushed by the globalist elites. Again there is the subject of overpopulation and that a vegan lifestyle leads to a deficiency in essential vitamins. European children being coerced into a vegan lifestyle are subject to a high risk of cerebral atrophy. The globalist elites would not want a low IQ population that would not be able to plan a revolt against their enslavement, would they? That would just be a crackpot conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? And yet every year, the "mind-forg'd manacles" are replaced by ever-stronger, ever-thicker ones, and the laws restrict our freedoms ever more. What is this but the road to slavery, the road to becoming little more than grazing cattle? Make no mistake, the elites will continue to eat meat, for predators always do, and the herbivores will always exist to be eaten by the carnivores in both a real and metaphorical sense.