Nick Griffin offers his comments on the recent media-storm

A fan, it seems.

https://twitter.com/nickgriffinmep/status/419797399247532032


P.

Oh dear. Oh very deary me.
The Griffin monster obviously finds Moz's other pronouncments acceptable.
This is not good news for the Moz fandom.

 

[realitybites]

So was David Irving, championed so loudly and for so long, until the blowback became a little much for him, by one Christopher Hitchens.

Yes, here is the Hitchslap: The Strange Case of David Irving.

 

[Anonymous]

Fun fact: when Morrissey compares the meat industry to the Holocaust, people don't feel offended 'for the Jews' but because they themselves are supporting the industry. People are self-centered. They don't want to admit that something that THEY are supporting might actually be f***ed up.

When somebody says that vegetarians = Nazis because Hitler was a vegetarian, nobody pretends to be offended; nobody starts screaming that the statement belittles the suffering of the Jews. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad and tiring.

Bingo! We have a winner.

 

[Anonymous]

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing comparable to a person buying a chicken sandwich and an adult grooming and sexually abusing a child.

I would be quite happy to leave my children in the care of someone who eats meat but most definitely would not be happy to leave them in the care of a known child abuser. Would you? We leave our children in the care of meat eaters all the time. So is that the same as leaving them in the care of child abusers?

And this almost religious enticement to persuade people to walk away from meat eaters is crazy. The only thing this kind of action that comes out of this kind of statement is overall a condemnation of such comments. It will not and never will make your average meat eating family consider reducing their meat intake.

Focus should be on education, helping and encouraging people to reduce their meat intake. If that happens then the meat industry will struggle beyond belief and the price of meat will go up and therefore start a catalyst process whereby more and more people will reduce their meat intake and give up meat all together.

This kind of hatred and calling people child abusers and nazis will never have that affect on people and will only make people who are already vegetarians feel they belong more and more to a closed clique. It is almost religious extremism as a comparison. Extreme christians condemn sinners to hell, extreme muslims condemn people to their hell, all condemnations of people who don't believe or practice what they believe in. This is edging the same way.

Education, tolerance, understanding, encouragement are the way forward, not hatred, and asking people to walk away form meat eaters etc etc.

As a matter of interest, were you born a vegetarian or were you brought up eating meat? Did you parents eat meat? Are they child abusers?

As an animal rights activist, I'd estimate that people who say things like "MEAT-EATERS A PEDOPHILES" make up maybe 0.1% of vegetarians. Literally. To the rest of us these statements are an extra burden. They are extremely harmful to the cause. I wish Morrissey had some understanding of how the human psyche works, so that he would stop wasting his opportunity to actually do something for the animals.

 

[Mary Kay]

Yes, here is the Hitchslap: The Strange Case of David Irving.

Damage control, issued very, very late in the game.

http://www.salon.com/2005/02/07/lipstadt/

Hitchens went where the spotlight took him.

 

[itsverycold]

i think it would be really funny if griffin's other eye got pecked out by a seagull and then he fell off a cliff.

 

[Playcat2000]

I hope Nick Griffin’s arteries get clogged up from all the meat he ingests.

 

[realitybites]

Damage control, issued very, very late in the game.

http://www.salon.com/2005/02/07/lipstadt/

Hitchens went where the spotlight took him.

Salon? Yikes. The editor, Joan Walsh, HATES Hitchens. Try Charlie Rose, a more neutral journalistic platform, instead...

 

[realitybites]

Fun fact: when Morrissey compares the meat industry to the Holocaust, people don't feel offended 'for the Jews' but because they themselves are supporting the industry. People are self-centered. They don't want to admit that something that THEY are supporting might actually be f***ed up.

Bullshit. His comment was insensitive to the Jews and their history... along with all other persons who lost family members in Auschwitz's gas chambers. It is actually an insult to our human sensibilities. Morrissey's opinion on meat eating holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not. I do, however, feel ashamed for Morrissey. I am embarrassed for him.

When somebody says that vegetarians = Nazis because Hitler was a vegetarian, nobody pretends to be offended; nobody starts screaming that the statement belittles the suffering of the Jews. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad and tiring.

Nobody compares vegetarians to Nazis because of Hitler's dietary habits. They do it because some militant vegetarians behave like fascists--telling everyone how to live and think.

 

[Anonymous]

Bullshit. His comment was insensitive to the Jews and their history... along with all other persons who lost family members the death camp, Auschwitz's gas chambers. It is actually an insult to our human sensibilities. Morrissey's opinion on meat eating holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not. I do, however, feel ashamed for Morrissey.

I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks the meat industry and Auschwitz are not comparable. They only killed around 1 million people in Auschwitz. Back in 2003 statistics were showing 53 BILLION land animals were being killed each year.
Anyone who thinks people are someone 'special' and all other animals are fair game to be slaughtered by the billion has a screw loose, if you ask me.
There is no difference between the holocaust and the meat industry - only a difference in scale.

 

[realitybites]

I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks the meat industry and Auschwitz are not comparable. They only killed around 1 million people in Auschwitz. Back in 2003 statistics were showing 53 BILLION land animals were being killed each year.
Anyone who thinks people are someone 'special' and all other animals are fair game to be slaughtered by the billion has a screw loose, if you ask me.
There is no difference between the holocaust and the meat industry - only a difference in scale.

I feel ashamed for you. You are living in la la land. I think it is YOU who has a few loose screws, my dear.

- - - Updated - - -

Bingo! We have a winner.

Are you cognitively impaired? I am trying to figure out how you could think that person's comment was accurate and sound.

 

[BrummieBoy]

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing comparable to a person buying a chicken sandwich and an adult grooming and sexually abusing a child.

I would be quite happy to leave my children in the care of someone who eats meat but most definitely would not be happy to leave them in the care of a known child abuser. Would you? We leave our children in the care of meat eaters all the time. So is that the same as leaving them in the care of child abusers?

And this almost religious enticement to persuade people to walk away from meat eaters is crazy. The only thing this kind of action that comes out of this kind of statement is overall a condemnation of such comments. It will not and never will make your average meat eating family consider reducing their meat intake.

Focus should be on education, helping and encouraging people to reduce their meat intake. If that happens then the meat industry will struggle beyond belief and the price of meat will go up and therefore start a catalyst process whereby more and more people will reduce their meat intake and give up meat all together.

This kind of hatred and calling people child abusers and nazis will never have that affect on people and will only make people who are already vegetarians feel they belong more and more to a closed clique. It is almost religious extremism as a comparison. Extreme christians condemn sinners to hell, extreme muslims condemn people to their hell, all condemnations of people who don't believe or practice what they believe in. This is edging the same way.

Education, tolerance, understanding, encouragement are the way forward, not hatred, and asking people to walk away form meat eaters etc etc.

As a matter of interest, were you born a vegetarian or were you brought up eating meat? Did you parents eat meat? Are they child abusers?

A thoughtful comment. Thank you for bringing into focus Morrissey's incoherent 'intellectual' extremism. When we add that to his 'Milk Is Murder' hypocrisy over dairy and his face-time attention whore trolling of the world's media, it's very hard to remain poised in relation to his 'art' which now appears almost totally bogus and the work of a charlatan who got lucky.

I do not accept the Privilege Agenda of prioritising the holocaust of Judaism above that of others, such as The Middle Passage of Black Africans to the Americas, the genocidal destruction of 'Native Americans' by European settlers and many other examples of the human Atrocity Exhibition. That doesn't make me 'anti-semitic'.

I happen to believe that there is a holocaust of Human Speciesism and Carnism which is wrecking the planet. I also think most people are blissfully unaware of their indoctrination in this cult of Carnism (including Morrissey) and that once they realise that other beings are Sentient, through education and empathy, then the eating of meat and dairy will radically fall away through consumer revulsion and market forces in economics. Carnism is a cult, by eating dairy and wearing wool, Morrissey is part of that cult. Therefore, his 'extremist' views on faux-Vegetarianism are preposterous: just another chance to troll the world media.

Wearing leather is actually irrelevant as leather is a by-product of the torture/slaughter regime of meat and milk production. Ditto eggs, feather pillows and so on. If people stop eating meat, then it becomes ridiculously uneconomic to raise animals just for 'leather'. Economics and Education will change things. Morrissey only cements intolerance and unreason, alongside his bizarre friends at PETA.

Any and all attempts at reducing animal suffering are to be applauded, such as Compassion In World Farming. Carnism is the most insidious cult within human consciousness, it will take generations to unravel and will only happen when ecological catastrophe and energy costs make it impossible to continue with an animal protein diet.

When Morrissey prances and cavorts in front of animal torture/slaughter porn onstage he fails to address the fact that dairy cows are slaughtered. Unless and until he makes a statement that he has eliminated 'Milk Is Murder' and 'Cheese Is A Carnist Crime' by adopting a plant-based diet, then he is nothing more than a troll. And a laughing stock. I note with amusement that he didn't have the balls to repeat his Uttoya Troll comments for the Nobel Audience. If he stands by them, why not repeat them periodically? Of course, he just wore silly pants for his pants rehash of failed demos and old chestnuts in Oslo, before returning to vomit out more nonsensical stuff about "do as I say not as I do" regarding dairy products.

Now we find Morrissey trolling the child sexual abuse crisis in contemporary society by this absurd linkage and by his threat of legal action against the Manchester Evening News for calling him out on his sophistry and troll bullshit. He is deeply hilarious, as are his absurd 'fans' who blather "why don't you just move on and leave our cult in peace if you no longer love Morrissey". Well, he epitomizes the Narcissism of Boomer Pop Culture in a way that's just as fascinating as Jagger, but with added LOLs! Bowie has grown up, though Morrissey still tries to hang onto his coat-tails via Visconti and by trolling the Thin White Duke.

Morrissey is one of the most entertaining and fascinating career car-crashes ever. Why would anyone miss the denoeument of this epicFAIL! prat? He was a chancer who got lucky with his cultural signifiers and playlists of music and film. In a pre-Internet age his 'personality remake/remodel via pop culture playlists and hip signals' was amusing and there was some validity to treating him as a serious artist whilst he was 1/4th of The Smiths and even up until 'Vauhall & I' when he posed as solo artist, but was, in fact, supported by hugely talented collaborators such as Stephen Smith and Alain Whyte. I pretended 'Kill Uncle' didn't happen.

Once the Internet arrived and a more nuanced, critical discussion was possible without the NME lame-stream media Gatekeeper types controlling the debate, it's become desperately obvious that he was always 'the boy-troll who got lucky'. And now, he's the man who fell to earth, flat on his face, arse over tit. Watching him spin into the abyss, comforted and deluded that sales=success is priceless. What's not to like?

regards
BB

 

[Anonymous]

As I stated in a previous post, I think that Morrissey's way of expressing his opinions on the meat industry is idiotic. It is harmful to the cause. The act of buying meat certainly does not require the same emotional darkness as the act of raping children. But:

Bullshit. His comment was insensitive to the Jews and their history... along with all other persons who lost family members in Auschwitz's gas chambers. It is actually an insult to our human sensibilities.

You are being irrational. There is no scientifically valid reason to assume that the suffering of human animals is morally any more important than the suffering of other vertebrates. You think the way you do only because of prevailing ideology, which is strongly based on Middle Eastern religions.

Think of it this way:

Mark is a very wealthy child genius. One day, somebody tortures him to death. Everybody mourns.

Susan, Mike and Frank are poor kids. They are also kind of dumb. Retarded even. One day, somebody tortures them to death. Nobody cares.

The next day, Morrissey compares the two crimes. He claims that the suffering of Susan, Mike and Frank was morally just as important as the suffering of Mark - even more important, actually, because the number of victims was higher.

After Morrissey's statement, people start expressing their outrage: how can Morrissey compare the suffering of penniless retards to the suffering of a wealthy child genius? He's clearly understating the suffering of Mark! No. This is a logical error. When Morrissey says that the suffering of a dumb kid is as important as the suffering of a smart kid he doesn't understate the suffering of the smart kid. He just says that as important as Mark is, the other kids are as important. The problem is you; you think that the suffering of a dumb kid is not morally very important, so you miss the message.

The only reason why you think that Morrissey is 'belittling' the suffering of humans is that you think that the suffering of animals doesn't matter very much. He believes in the rights of all species, you believe in the rights of your species. When Morrissey compares the suffering of animals to the suffering of humans, your brain thinks that he's saying that humans are as unimportant as you think animals are. No. He's stating that as important as the suffering of humans is, to him the suffering of other animals is equally important.

Whatever you think of animal rights, there's no reason to feel outraged by this particular comment. You find yourself important, and when Morrissey says that somebody else is as important, you feel offended. But he's not understating your moral value in any way; he's saying that you matter and others matter too. Factually, the only one understating somebody's suffering is you.

Morrissey's opinion on meat eating holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not.

I find this very sad. I think that people should react to violence. I also think that 'meat-eating = pedophilia' kind of comments are idiotic and only distance people from the issue.

Nobody compares vegetarians to Nazis because of Hitler's dietary habits.

Incorrect.

____________


Btw, this was not written by me: "I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks the meat industry and Auschwitz are not comparable. They only killed around 1 million people in Auschwitz. Back in 2003 statistics were showing 53 BILLION land animals were being killed each year.
Anyone who thinks people are someone 'special' and all other animals are fair game to be slaughtered by the billion has a screw loose, if you ask me.
There is no difference between the holocaust and the meat industry - only a difference in scale."

Howerer, what this poster writes is factual. In terms of inflicted suffering, the modern meat industry is a much greater problem than the Holocaust. The main reason you're reacting to this irrationally is that you're supporting the meat industry financially. Most people do. The reaction is psychologically understandable.

 

[Anonymous]

I also think most people are blissfully unaware of their indoctrination in this cult of Carnism (including Morrissey) and that once they realise that other beings are Sentient, through education and empathy, then the eating of meat and dairy will radically fall away through consumer revulsion and market forces in economics.

No. People are not that rational. They may see the facts, but they do not react. ("[This information] holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not.") What may actually change everything is in vitro meat. When people can admit their responsibility without actually giving up anything, they will do it. Most people already are against animal abuse in theory, but this will affect their behaviour in practice.

All people are never going to suddenly go vegan. Even if they did, it would take centuries, and we don't have that much time to act. Realistically speaking, in vitro meat is the only thing that can save the animals, us and the planet.

 

[realitybites]

As I stated in a previous post, I think that Morrissey's way of expressing his opinions on the meat industry is idiotic. It is harmful to the cause. The act of buying meat certainly does not require the same emotional darkness as the act of raping children. But:

You are being irrational. There is no scientifically valid reason to assume that the suffering of human animals is morally any more important than the suffering of other vertebrates. You think the way you do only because of prevailing ideology, which is strongly based on Middle Eastern religions.

A human suffering is worse than a pig suffering. Because the suffering is exponential. When I suffer, my whole family suffers. When my mother suffers as a result of my suffering, her husband suffers. His work then suffers. His company then suffers. His employees then suffer. Their children then suffer. The children's friends suffer, causing their parents to suffer. It can go on, and on, and on. Because humans are connected by relationships--huge interconnected ones. Our suffering doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is felt and experienced by many. Our suffering is contagious. On the other hand, one pig suffering is one pig suffering. It effects no more than perhaps the mother. Or a few pen mates. It is limited. And short term. It is minimal compared to the capacity of human suffering. (Posted here as well.)

Think of it this way:

Mark is a very wealthy child genius. One day, somebody tortures him to death. Everybody mourns.

Susan, Mike and Frank are poor kids. They are also kind of dumb. Retarded even. One day, somebody tortures them to death. Nobody cares.

The parents care. Their suffering is as valid and intense as the parents of the smart child. I never said intelligent people suffer more. Though studies do suggest they do. Why do you think we have the term ignorance is bliss? Mental suffering. Existential angst is not something the severely cognitively impaired or animals experience. Pigs don't ponder the meaning of life and decide it is not worth living and commit suicide. Their suffering is limited and not as broad in scope. More physical or anxiety/frustration related. Higher reasoning abilities allow for greater suffering.

The next day, Morrissey compares the two crimes. He claims that the suffering of Susan, Mike and Frank was morally just as important as the suffering of Mark - even more important, actually, because the number of victims was higher.

I don't think comparing the suffering of two different children is the same as comparing the suffering of children and animals. The analogy doesn't work for me. Are the parents of the animals suffering like the parents of the children? Is the pig species, as a whole, suffering as a result of their awareness of genocide committed against them, in the same way that the Jews suffer as a result of what years of anti-Semitism has done in the form of psychic pain, which continues this day as a meme, transmitted from generation to generation? No, pigs don't transfer these psychic suffering memes to their offspring. They do not transmit the horrors of their experiences and pasts with future generations. Their histories do not imprint themselves on the minds of the young. Suffering is not transmitted from one generation to the next. It is limited in scope.

After Morrissey's statement, people start expressing their outrage: how can Morrissey compare the suffering of penniless retards to the suffering of a wealthy child genius? He's clearly understating the suffering of Mark! No. This is a logical error. When Morrissey says that the suffering of a dumb kid is as important as the suffering of a smart kid he doesn't understate the suffering of the smart kid. He just says that as important as Mark is, the other kids are as important. The problem is you; you think that the suffering of a dumb kid is not morally very important, so you miss the message.

I never ever said this. Ever. The parents of the DD child would suffer if their child suffered, in equal measure to the parents of the genius child. Just because the DD child may not be able to experience existential angst or psychic pain to the same degree as the genius, it does not make the child's other forms of suffering irrelevant. But the parents' sufferings are key here.

The only reason why you think that Morrissey is 'belittling' the suffering of humans is that you think that the suffering of animals doesn't matter very much. He believes in the rights of all species, you believe in the rights of your species. When Morrissey compares the suffering of animals to the suffering of humans, your brain thinks that he's saying that humans are as unimportant as you think animals are. No. He's stating that as important as the suffering of humans is, to him the suffering of other animals is equally important.

But I don't. He can think that. I, and many others, disagree. So that is why his comments seem crass. You have to first accept his position to see his comments as sound. I don't accept his position.

Whatever you think of animal rights, there's no reason to feel outraged by this particular comment. You find yourself important, and when Morrissey says that somebody else is as important, you feel offended. But he's not understating your moral value in any way; he's saying that you matter and others matter too. Factually, the only one understating somebody's suffering is you.

He wants to elevate them to human status. They are not human. I don't feel he is trying to bring humans down. That claim is erroneous.

I find this very sad. I think that people should react to violence. I also think that 'meat-eating = pedophilia' kind of comments are idiotic and only distance people from the issue.

I agree.

Incorrect.

Please elaborate. As the way your comment was originally written, it was a bit unclear: "When somebody says that vegetarians = Nazis because Hitler was a vegetarian, nobody pretends to be offended; nobody starts screaming that the statement belittles the suffering of the Jews. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad and tiring."

Btw, this was not written by me: "I feel ashamed for anyone who thinks the meat industry and Auschwitz are not comparable. They only killed around 1 million people in Auschwitz. Back in 2003 statistics were showing 53 BILLION land animals were being killed each year.
Anyone who thinks people are someone 'special' and all other animals are fair game to be slaughtered by the billion has a screw loose, if you ask me.
There is no difference between the holocaust and the meat industry - only a difference in scale."

Howerer, what this poster writes is factual. In terms of inflicted suffering, the modern meat industry is a much greater problem than the Holocaust. The main reason you're reacting to this irrationally is that you're supporting the meat industry financially. Most people do. The reaction is psychologically understandable.

You can only use that utilitarian argument if you first accept that animals suffer as much as humans. I don't. How many apples make an orange? None. An apple can never be an orange. Animals aren't humans. More animals don't make them more human like. There is no strength in numbers when comparing different things. One billion animal deaths is not a greater loss than one human death. It is a different kind of loss. And seems silly to compare the two.

 

[Anonymous]

Existential angst is not something the severely cognitively impaired or animals experience.

Most people don't experience much existential angst. I do and you do, because we are the intelligent, angry type. Most people I know are not.

A miserable pig doesn't commit suicide because it does not know that there's such a way out of the misery. This doesn't really help.

Higher reasoning abilities allow for greater suffering.

I disagree. The reason why my dog gets so easily distressed and scared is that she doesn't see situations rationally. She's completely emotional. She doesn't know how to rationalize her way out of the fear and pain. She's easily traumatized by silly things.

No, pigs don't transfer these psychic suffering memes to their offspring. They do not transmit the horrors of their experiences and pasts with future generations. Their histories do not imprint themselves on the minds of the young. Suffering is not transmitted from one generation to the next.

It doesn't need to be, because pigs in the meat industry don't associate with the earlier generations. Those generations are dead after living lives of constant horror. And then the new generations live lives of constant horror. They've got enough suffering even without the burden of their parents.

I don't know about pigs, but I recently read about a study that revealed that in elephant populations, the traumas of older generations affect the younger generations. It's quite interesting: in some way or another, they communicate the pain to their young. A traumatic life creates traumatized animals. A traumatized animal is necessarily not a stable parent.

I don't feel he is trying to bring humans down.

Yes you do. If you didn't, there wouldn't be any reason to feel offended. You think that animals aren't very important, and when Morrissey says that they are as important as humans, you think that he's belittling humans.

Otherwise the outrage would be pointless. If you believe that Izzie is a worthless moron and somebody disagrees with you, there's no point to feel offended. That's their opinion. Let them like Izzie. As if moral value was something limited that you have to guard against those that you think don't deserve it.

Please elaborate.

"Hitler was a vegetarian -> vegetarianism is wrong and vegetarians are Nazis" is one of the most common arguments against vegetarianism. Unfortunately. Believe me, I know.

You can only use that utilitarian argument if you first accept that animals suffer as much as humans.

To assume that the suffering inflicted by the Holocaust was greater than the suffering inflicted by the meat industry, you'd have to assume that the suffering of a human animal is hundreds of thousands of times more intense than the suffering of a non-human animal. And that would be ridiculous from a biological point of view.

I don't. How many apples make an orange? None. An apple can never be an orange. Animals aren't humans. More animals don't make them more human like. There is no strength in numbers when comparing different things. One billion animal deaths is not a greater loss than one human death. It is a different kind of loss.

This is just crazy. (Btw, I don't really care about deaths. I care about suffering. Of course the death of a human animal will normally cause more suffering than the death of a non-human animal.)

And seems silly to compare the two.

No. You just find the comparison uncomfortable for understandable reasons.

 

[Anonymous]

A human suffering is worse than a pig suffering.

It's still suffering, even by your limited definition (which, by your argument, means that if someone has no family or friends who will miss them when they die, it's morally OK to kill them) . You can't take the moral high-ground by being all 'sad-face' at the Holocaust whilst happily causing the misery and deaths of millions of living beings by eating meat. You are not on the moral high ground, you are in a f***ing ditch. You, personally, by being a slave to your taste buds and thinking you are superior to all other life forms, are contributing needless death and suffering to the world.

And you have the nerve to get upset when Morrissey dares to call you out by comparing animal and human suffering? Really? Are you that far up your own ass?

 

[Charlie Cheswick]

One thing I can say with certainty, we don't know what an animal feels, understands or doesn't.

People seem to have a real issue when somebody compares animal suffering to human suffering but I think the point when this is done is to raise our level of empathy to animal suffering rather than to belittle human suffering.

What we seem to be talking about are our perceptions of what was said rather than what was said.

 

[Anonymous]

People seem to have a real issue when somebody compares animal suffering to human suffering but I think the point when this is done is to raise our level of empathy to animal suffering rather than to belittle human suffering.

Exactly.

 

[salad tosser]

Salon? Yikes. The editor, Joan Walsh, HATES Hitchens.

The way you strain to invalidate any opinion that discomfits you is ridiculous. (My favorite example: itsverycold once played a prank on someone, THEREFORE his criticisms of you are invalid.) Plenty of people thought Hitchens was a buffoon, and still do.

Try Charlie Rose, a more neutral journalistic platform, instead...

Charlie Rose is a zombie who hasn't a clue who half of his guests are. And you only trust "neutral journalistic platforms"? Then you can't trust anything Hitchens ever published, the bulk of it having appeared in The Nation. Why can't you see these arguments coming? One learns nothing from arguing with you except, perhaps, patience.

I don't know which video you've embedded, but I saw the original interviews of Hitchens defending Irving when they aired. It was already known who Irving was and what he stood for: Holocaust denial. Hitchens was trying very hard to be a pop culture Chomsky at the time, and he wanted to manufacture his own version of "the Faurisson affair," about which you'll know nothing, but Google your little heart out and skip back here to summarize for us. (It'll blow Peter B's mind.) Hitchens additionally wanted to tweak Israel's defenders.

You're a follower. Much like the man you're following.

 

[Anonymous]

Bullshit. His comment was insensitive to the Jews and their history... along with all other persons who lost family members in Auschwitz's gas chambers. It is actually an insult to our human sensibilities. Morrissey's opinion on meat eating holds no weight with me. Or most meat eaters. I feel no shame for eating meat. Most, do not. I do, however, feel ashamed for Morrissey. I am embarrassed for him.



Nobody compares vegetarians to Nazis because of Hitler's dietary habits. They do it because some militant vegetarians behave like fascists--telling everyone how to live and think.

I love it when meat-eaters whine about 'militant' vegetarians 'telling them how to live', completely ignorant of how the dominant, accepted culture of eating animals means that vegetarians get the same damn thing every day, whether through advertising, restaurant menus full of nothing but flesh, and direct mockery and taunting from meat eaters ('go on, don't you want a bacon sandwich?!' etc etc etc).

It's the dominant culture of meat-eating that's comparable to fascism, not vegetarians.