YouTube now automatically burying anti-GMO, anti-vegan comments as spam.

I just posted a comment on this video, and when I checked with my personal YouTube account, I noticed my comment has already been buried as spam.

My comment:

@informationwarfare That’s what Monsanto wants. They pay vegan GMO shills like the “Unnatural Vegan” – real name Swayze Foster – to spew pro-GMO propaganda and to attack legitimate food activists such as the Food Babe for attacking GMO soy, GMO canola oil, GMOs in general, and MSG.
The Unnatural Vegan is a food industry shill.
So now if you expose pro-GMO vegans as shills for Monsanto and paid industry attack dogs who will attack anybody who threatens their corporate overlords’ corporate interests, you are labelled a spammer.
So how much longer before Google starts banning people for promoting anti-GMO viewpoints? And how much longer before YouTube declares that any criticism of animal rights activists and vegans is hate speech?
Advertisements
Standard

PETA says meat eaters are racists.

Comment: That’s a laugh coming from a group which allowed a Zionist Jew to create the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign which equate factory farmed chickens with Jewish concentration camp victims during the Nazi Holocaust.

You didn’t hear the ADL and the SPLC calling for Ingrid Newkirk to be fired or forced to resign for approving the campaign. Why? Because PETA is run by the Zionist Jews at the CIA, MI6, and Mossad.

It’s okay for PETA to equate factory farmed chickens with Jews, but when I equate PETA with the Nazis and the millions of dogs and cats they have gassed to death at their Auschwitz operation in Norfolk with the Jews who were gassed to death by the Nazis, I get banned from YouTube and threatened with arrest.

PETA is a Zionist Jew false flag group, people. Wake the fuck up.

—————————————————————————-

Are Meat-Eaters More Likely To Be Racists?

Written by Paula Moore | June 4, 2015

According to a new study by an international team of researchers, your thoughts about marriage equality and racial justice could be linked to your affinity for steaks and sausages. In other words, if the idea of killing another living being for dinner doesn’t leave a bad taste in your mouth, then you’re probably not too bothered by other social injustices, either.

The study, “Rationalizing Meat Consumption. The 4 Ns,” published in the journal Appetite, found that people who justify eating animals by claiming that it is “natural,” “normal,” “necessary” or “nice”—even though it is none of these things—are more tolerant of social inequality in general.

Historically, these same “Ns” have been trotted out to justify everything from slavery to homophobia. For instance, as the study notes, “In defense of male-only voting practices in the U.S. opponents of women’s suffrage often appealed to the necessity of denying women the vote … to the natural superiority of male intelligence, and to the historical normalness of male-only voting as ‘designed by our forefathers.’ … Today, most people find such arguments in support of male-only voting ludicrous at best.”

This confirms what PETA has long maintained: The mindset that condones the oppression of other humans—whether Jews, women, gays or people of color—is the same mindset that permits the exploitation of animals. Prejudices of any stripe arise when we start to believe that “I” am important and “you” are not, that my interests somehow trump those of other living beings.

It’s not surprising that meat-eaters find it necessary to defend their behavior, which is increasingly coming under public scrutiny. In this day and age, anyone who’s been paying attention knows that raising and killing animals for food is destroying the planet, jeopardizing our health and causing tremendous suffering to billions of sentient beings. In today’s meat and dairy industries, animals know little else but pain, fear, injury and disease. Piglets have their tails and testicles cut off without being given painkillers, chickens and turkeys have their throats cut while they’re still conscious and calves are taken away from their mothers within hours of birth.

And the United Nations reports that a global shift toward a vegan diet is necessary if we want to combat the worst effects of climate change.

It’s simpler to make excuses—”I grew up eating meat; it’s normal,” or “A plate of spare ribs is so nice after a hard day”—than it is to change behavior. It’s easy to shake our heads in disbelief at what others before us have done but not so easy to examine honestly the biases and prejudices that we hold today.

But there’s hope. As more consumers begin to question the status quo and reject the inherent violence of eating animals, the world will become a kinder place for all of us.

A previous study found that vegans and vegetarians have more empathy than meat-eaters do—for both animals and their fellow humans. Researchers in Europe placed volunteers in an MRI machine and showed them a series of random pictures during scanning. The scans revealed that when observing animal or human suffering, the “empathy-related” areas of the brain are more active among vegetarians and vegans. The researchers also found that there are certain brain areas that only vegans and vegetarians seem to activate when witnessing suffering.

Compassion begets compassion. Change can happen when we begin to recognize that all oppression, prejudice and cruelty are wrong—and that all are connected. We can start with dinner.

Paula Moore is a senior writer for the PETA Foundation, 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510; http://www.PETA.org.

This post originally appeared in the Sun Sentinel.

Standard

Monsanto operative Skeptical Vegan attacks Food Babe for her pro-organic, anti-GMO viewpoints.

Comment: Earlier, I mistakenly said that this was written by Swayze Foster, the Unnatural Vegan. I apologize for the error and have edited this article. It doesn’t change the fact that Swayze Foster and the Skeptical Vegan are pro-GMO shills.

The Fear Babe, Part 1: Hexane & Soy Protein

Especially troubling is this excerpt:

Over the years a number of groups such as the Weston A Price Foundation and The Cornucopia Institute have sought to exploit public fears of this issue for their anti-soy and pro-organic agendas.

“Pro-organic agenda”…that sounds like Monsanto propaganda right there.

The Fear Babe, Part 2: Canola Oil

The Fear Babe, Part 3: TVP & Nitrite

The Fear Babe, Part 4: MSG

Next up on the list of things that scare The Food Babe is monosodium glutamate (MSG), a food additive that gives dishes a deep and savory, or umami, taste. The belief that MSG is a harmful food additive is so pervasive that it is often taken for granted that it is something to be avoided.

The Fear Babe, Part 6: Castoreum

The Fear Babe, Part 5: GMOs

Standard

Conservatives who attack Rainbow Doritos are labelled homophobic, while liberals who attack Rainbow Doritos are given a free pass.

Yet another example of liberal hypocrisy.

As you all know, Mike Adams recently attacked Rainbow Doritos because if contains GMO ingredients, MSG, and toxic food dyes.

For his legitimate gripes about Rainbow Doritos and how it promotes cancer, he was attacked as a homophobe.

But guess who else attacked Rainbow Doritos?

CSPI, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

So when will the liberals attack CSPI for being homophobic? The answer is NEVER. Why? Because CSPI is run by modern-day liberal trendies who take Rockefeller money to lord over everybody.

The fake left will never attack CSPI for its stance against Rainbow Doritos because CSPI’s executive director is Jewish, and you all know that if you criticize a Jew for any reason no matter how legitimate your reason may be, you are automatically labelled an anti-semite.

Also, several Jewish foundations fund CSPI, so if you attack CSPI, you’re also attacking the Jews who fund CSPI, and that too automatically makes you an anti-semite.

So in a nutshell, it’s okay for Zionist Jews on the left to criticize Rainbow Doritos, but when right-wing conservatives make the same criticisms of Rainbow Doritos, they’re homophobes.

It’s time to tell ALL the hypocritical liberals to shut the fuck up.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Standard

Major feud brewing between HSUS and PETA as Pacelle says PETA is wrong to attack Whole Foods.

Whole Foods Deserves Whole Praise for Anti-Factory Farming Leadership

September 28, 2015

There can be no question that, among all major companies in the supermarket sector, Whole Foods Market has been the leader on animal welfare. It’s typically been a first adopter of new vegetarian and vegan food products, and in the process made plant-based eating a far more mainstream and practical notion. Whole Foods has had no small part in the success of start-ups like Gardein, Hampton Creek and Beyond Meat, which got shelf space at Whole Foods and then were able to scale up and gain greater market access throughout the entire food retail sector.

Whole Foods also chose not to sell foie gras or live lobsters on animal welfare grounds, and years before any other marketplace actors, it prohibited the sale of eggs from caged hens or pork or veal from crated animals. So many subsequent decisions from major food retailers about ending the purchasing of eggs or pork from caged or crated animals got a lift from Whole Food’s success in demonstrating that such corporate policies were workable in the marketplace. In short, it said that some common agricultural and commercial fishing practices are beyond the pale and don’t deserve to be represented in the meat case or on the shelf.

But eliminating cages and crates, while an important step, doesn’t address a wide range of other animal welfare concerns in agriculture. So Whole Foods took animal welfare to a higher standard by providing the inspiration for developing a multi-tiered animal welfare rating program for the animal products sold in its stores. That five-step program, administered by an organization called the Global Animal Partnership (GAP), has set up specific standards for pigs, lambs, chickens, and other species. For example, at Level 1, there are no cages or crates for any of the animals. Level 2 requires an enriched environment. At Level 3, the animals have outdoor access. At Level 4, production is pasture-based. At Level 5, the animals are slaughtered on the farm, to avoid the stress they would go through during loading, transport, and off-loading.

This has been a labeling and marketing revolution for animal welfare, and there are now more than 300 million animals who generally have much-improved living conditions under GAP certification programs, on about 2,800 farms. Many of these farmers were already practicing these higher standards and more are joining them every day, encouraged to do so by the Whole Foods program and the promise of a market to sell their higher-welfare products in. I was pleased to join the board of GAP a few years ago to contribute not just to the animal-welfare dimensions of the program, but also to promote the program so that other supermarket chains and food sellers might adopt it and ban the worst factory farming practices from their shelves as well. While we’re hopeful that other big companies will embrace it, no other national players have as yet, making Whole Foods the unparalleled leader in animal welfare. (In full disclosure, at the time I joined the GAP board, I asked John Mackey, the co-CEO of Whole Foods Market and himself a fellow vegan, to join the board of The HSUS, and he agreed.)

Whole Foods operates with a similar philosophy to The HSUS: we want people to think about their food choices and make better choices for themselves, animals, the planet, and farmers. We want people to eat a larger share of plant-based foods to reduce the number of animals in factory farms and slaughter plants, but the reality is that most people are going to continue to eat meat, drink milk, and eat eggs for many years to come. Yet, except for GAP and a few much smaller programs, there is little in the marketplace to give consumers guidance in making more humane choices. Whole Foods is making sure that there are higher welfare products in the marketplace, so people can advance that principle in the marketplace, and so farmers who adhere to higher animal welfare standards have an opportunity to connect with consumers through their food purchases.

For any vegan, Whole Foods gives more options than any other major outlet. For any meat eater, it also gives more options – offering up as many as five varieties of products, all meeting a baseline standard and then allowing consumers to reach for higher standards. The system encourages farmers to move to higher levels of welfare standards, too, with so many of them improving their practices so they can sell at Levels 3, 4, or even 5, and do even better for animals.

This is why I am troubled that PETA has chosen to sue Whole Foods in an apparent attempt to undermine or call into question the value of the GAP program.  This is counterproductive, especially in a marketplace where there are dozens of other chains nearly exclusively selling factory farm animal products. Not one of them has done as much as Whole Foods has to promote more plant-based eating and to advance farm animal welfare and fight factory farming in very practical terms.

Animal protection imperatives are best served when groups in our field call out the laggards and the obstructionists on animal welfare. Whole Foods, on the other hand, is a best actor, and there’s a very tangible record over many years to demonstrate that truth.

Standard