Response to luke Smith
March 26th, 2022

I recenty read an article on luke smiths blog about his dstaine for vegans. Now it's no secret that he hates "lefties, communists, furries, vegans, and all types of 'degenerates.' He was very apt to point out that he has picked up many of these, so called, "degenerates" on his blog for his, with out doubt, knowledgeable and well spoken interpretation of the linux kernel and GNU based opperating systems. I knew these things from the moment I saw his channel. Typically I like his content. I agree with him on many things that he says; He's absolutely right about modern videogames and streaming services. Modern capitalism absolutely is about the generation of profit over all else and certatintly turns it's passive consumers into soyberts that know nothing better than suckling at the tit of industrial society. That is a digression though.

I want to preface this with: I was vegan for 5 years. I recently have killed that diet and I went back to eating meat, shortly, and I have recently decided on a nominally healthy vegitarian diet. I want to say, reading his blogs, one deff gets the hint that he is a 4chan pol lurker. It bleeds out of every word he says. His mind is so rotten with spooks and other scary practicies that it's no wonder the polfargs who watch him have seemingly declared him to be king frong. I mean, luke, really, the way you talk you should just come out as one of these faggot 16 year old trad cath larpers...anyway.

This is about veganism. So, what about veganism? What is it about veganism that luke smith hates so much? Let's find out.

  • 1. Vegans are bugmen and the specter of "Modernism"

    I am going to be honest. Your average unread retard running around who doesn't know anything about the world or the ideologies that encompass it, or, history, or, well anything really; the soy coomer liberal who is simply chasing trends. This is who Mr. Smith tries to paint in your mind in order to prime you to revulsively think about veganism and go "oh well I certaintly am not part of this camp." As many people do. This is common behavior for the weak minded conservative cucks that are part of this particular social ecosystem. In short, yes, many vegans are, infact, bugmen. Par his very own definition, I tend to have a bit of a different understanding of bugman, but, that's simply an aside. He begins this blog by declaring that vegans, communists, marxist, atheists, etc, etc "reject tradition, religion, their family, gender roles, etc etc" Obviously predicating on the assumption that these things are bad. A strawman, of course, but, none the less, here we are focusing on vegans, so; I will say Lukesmith is a master rehtorician Right off the bat you are expected to believe that these things "tradition, family, gender roles, etc etc" are all good and, not only that, they are all exactly in the same category and mutally co-deppendent on one another. This is a very easy to miss slight of hand played by hucksters like this. The fact of the matter is that the assumption that "Tradition" is good, or, "family" is good, or, "gender roles" is good all should be examined, individually, each one on their own merit. This might seem like an aside at first, but, we need to break down this ideology in order to understand what is going on here.

    - Tradition

    Well let's look at the highest hanging fruit, obviously, tradition: Traditions are part of human society. They have been since the dawn of man kind. They have been with us for all eternity and will contiue (hopefully) to be with us in the coming future times. Traditions themselves are not bad. We celebrate new years, we celebrate halloween, we celebrate labor day, may day, etc etc. Humans from many different culture celebrate many different traditions and beliefs. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not even from the perspective of the evil soy communist vegans such as myself.

    The issue is when you have traditions such as racism, killing homosexuals, purging muslims due to your religious faith, these are the things that make traditions bad. Traditions are a mental block in many senses. When you talk about traditions, or, actively engauge in traditions, or defend traditions you are, at a psycological level, insituting a type of mental block. You are letting your bias's take over you and decalring "this is the way it is" to yourself and many others. That, also, is perfectly fine. There's little wrong with this. The issue, obviously, is when you start applying this logic to things like racism, homophobia, etc etc. That is when there are obviously going to be contientions between races, sexual identities, etc etc. A leftist, a communist, like myself understands these contraditions and seeks to aleviate them materialistically in society. People like luke smith say "Nah let the blacks and whites kill eachother" "So what if gay people get stoned to death they deserve it" "It's tradition!" I am not saying luke is this extreme, per se, but, what I am saying is that luke thinks that these things are natural and as such should be defended for being the "natural state of things;" really this is the logic I can infere from this diatrab on tradition and bugmen, lol.


    You would, honestly, be hard pressed to find anyone, let alone a leftist, who cares if you have a nuclear family. There have been many critques and analysis on the history and development of the neuclear family in capitalism and modern society and you don't have to agree with them just like other people don't have to agree with Luke and is silly little beliefs that he desperately clings to like a child suckling at the tit of his mother. No one cares about having a family luke. The disruption of the neuclear family is the direct result of the insitutions of capitalism expaning into modern times. Grow up.

    -Gender roles

    Lol, the eternal liberal haunts this mans psyche. What is there to really say on this point? Yes, modern liberals are increadibly stupid and bug-pilled when it comes to this topic. Genders today are the ideolgical equivalent of going to walmart "Ooo look will I be a pansexual, multi-polyamousiours, queer non binary trans otherkin today?" "What about a bi kink furry cis hetero man?" It's maximum soy, maximum cringe and I can only speak for myself here, but, I personally can't stad this liberal soy behavior. It's annoying and I hate it. Last but not least this little screed "Modernism pretends to liberate people from arbitrary traditions and authorities when in reality it substitues natural, emergent morals with controlled authorities." The issue with this is that what luke understands as "modernism" is simply the natural expanstion and development of capitalism. People like luke view their traditions and morals in a vacuum. They view them as having always existed and use this fallacy to then say that they "ought to always exist" when the reality is many of the "cultures" and "traditions" this man so ardently defends are the restult of the expansion of capital through out the meliue of history. Let's take racism for example (which lukes explicitly states that every race has a deterministic set of traditions and cultures I just want to add) Starting with the development of agriculture people began gaining private accumulations of wealth eventually these conclaves developed into very powerful city states that were controlled by kings and countries and these city states would war with one another. Labor (as is always) is required to produce valuable goods for these societies. (weapons, arms, food, etc etc and bread and circus's) What is a cheap way to get labor for your waring city states? Slavery, perhaps? This would go on and on and become such a normal part of society that eventually as society would evolve and with the development of ship building and navigation creates the ability to form trade routes and these trade routers were established for these human forms of capital. This is called colonialism. Colonialism was driven by the expansion of capitalism and racism as a science and ideology was crafted in response as a justifaction to this.

    It is only after the fact that the psuedo-scientific theories of "racialism" or "race science" became a reality and only after this fact that many of the things that Mr, Luke here atributes to "natural culture" or whatever spooks he is chasing after in his mind became an idea. It is post-priori that these things became fact and the same is true of many differnt concepts through out history; The development of the nueclear family (and its destruction) can both be placed at the altar of capital. People like luke fancy themselves rebellious in one way or another and they think they are pushing back against the expansion of "modernism" when the reality is that in their myopia they fail to see that they are as much relient on the system they claim to be fighting against as anyone else. *Luke is the bugman he claims to despise*

    My point being that Gender as a concept was created there the development of the system of capitalism and came about through the development of the nuclear family. No where in objective reality or society, historeically, from when we were picking berries as hunter and gatherer's to the fedual era when unics were common practice among kinds and royalty. In the victorian era little boys and little girls were commonly dressed in the opposing genders clothing. This idea that Trans people who were clothing designed for a gender they do not identify with is absurd. Gender as a concept is absurd and this is what luke fails to understand. Trans people were the clothing they are comfortable with. I don't think pride parades should involve half the shit I see at them. I don't think people should be exposing themselves publicly and of course not to children, but, also on the same coin I believe that people should be allowed to wear the clothing they feel comfortable in and not have to be shit on by dumb gender roles and have no place in society. The same is true of lukes concept of a "man" it's a role that he fills and tries to achieve. All gender, not just the gender of people who identify as a gender they nominally are not accepted as is bullshit and people should be allowed to wear whatever they want. This is were luke smith, again, is exposed to be everything he hates.

    So what does this say of veganism? From what we can see above, though, he would certantily not admit it, luke has a system of beliefs and ideologies that he is defending himself and he finds them "good" "moral" whatever you wish to call it. Then on the other cheek luke turns around and slaps vegans in the face for (rightfully) pointing out the brutality of this "tradition" of eating meat. He speaks from both sides of his tounge. I am going to give him the benifit of the doubt and say that he doesn't, neccesarily, realize this, but who knows. The fact of the matter is that both sides of this argument uphold a system of morals and judgments that they believ are right and that they think people should uphold, or, at least retain. (Though luke would probably deny this I would assume) The reason luke wants to paint this argument so one sidely is because he want's you think that both arguments are not on equal footing. He wants you to think that he is arguing from the default position so that he can manufacture this, myopic, world view of fighting against "le bad modernism" and so that there can be no recompence from the opposing side.

  • 2. "Veganism is bad for your health"

    It's funny that Luke finds it neccesary to point out that people using the health benifits of veganism as a "pr campaing." As if this is even a bad thing. Many vegans understand how faggy liberals can suck the air out of a room and, indeed, I do use this as a spring board in conversation to perhaps help give some social lubericant to the discussion. What is wrong with that luke? He then goes on the cry about how deep down vegans are "just moralistic" as if this pseudo-intellecuals traditional catholic (or whatever) system of belief isn't moralistic, or, that his stances against veganism aren't moralistic. This is the language used to paint one side of the argument as being "moralistic cry fags" and obviously his side simply could never hold any of those "silly morals" or "spooks" which is hilarious coming from a god fearing catholic (christian?) like Mr Luke Smith. So what is it luke? Are morals good or bad? I personally consider myself to be a bit of a nihilist, but, I try not to cuck out and put labels on myself to much. That being said when you look at it in this lense it's easy to see there are two equal positions here: One Eating meat is wrong because killing is wrong. Killing animals is wrong and as such we should cease to do that because, after all, killing is wrong. Then you have lukes side of the argument which is what he tacitly admits, but, I imagine if pressed he will refuse to admit it. That argument is that killing is good. Destruction, death, killing, pain, suffering, these things are aall desireable traits. Anyone with half a brain could take a look at the argumetn "killing is good" and "killing is bad" and understand that killing is, indeed, bad. This faggot wants you to believe that his side is on unequal footing to the opposition, but, don't fall for it. Luke is every bit the bugman he claims to dispise. He thens goes on to complain that "well if veganism was healthy" then why has meat been "view" as healthy through out all of human society and history and is nutritionally superior. Part of this is actually true, as is, typically, the case with these reactionaries. Half truths are the name of the game. Indeed, meat is much more nutritional than veggies. meat containts a ton of minerals, vitimines, fats, protines, etc etc that plants just cannot compete with. This is 100% true. At this point most people would probably start attacking him based on the value of the nutration found in the (far wider) variaty of plant based foods found through out the world (one of the many benifits of living in a modern society) But, I don't think I will do this, I think I will take a different approach. The one thing luke fails to understand here is that the human diet, traditionally, 2000 years ago, while meat centered, yes, was one of absolute scarcity. Modern capitalism has brought with it an extreme over abundance of wealth. Now more than ever there is more food of all kinds of varities to go around and this is where the soy nature of lukes ideology is exposed. Luke thinks in his mind that people were eating meat every day every meal thousands of years ago when that is not the case at all. Traditionally, people have eaten meat in scarcity specifically because of how nutritionally packed it was. It gave you everything you needed for a few days while you subsisted off fruits and veggies in the mean time. Unlike with our hunter gather ancestors who were keenly adapted to their enviroment yet still nominally subsited off berries and foraged fruits. It took much more energy to kill an elk, or, a lion with speers and a pack of 5 - 6 tribes men then it did to just pick some berries; modern capitalism has given us fruits and vegitables, meats and all kinds of foods and delicacies from all over the globe. As Marx himself said "The world as we know it presents itself as a vast accumulation of commodities." The difference between life in 1246 BC and 2022 is lost on Luke. So here we see the first major flaw in lukes argument: Meat was enjoyed traditionally in scarcity not in excess.

  • 3. Vegans are rational

    This is a bit of a strawman crafted by luke to justify his own stupidity. He goes on to say that vegans are exceptionally """rational""" (I want to emphasize that he puts this in qoutes) and then goes on to say that vegans adopt the moral values of "modern society" and, of course, these "modern values" are "Marxism" "equality" and every strawman you can really think of to pull on the opposition he does this. I wont dwell on these things as this is not neccesarily about marxism, but, I will say that the implication here is that you ought to adopt, or, at least passively agree with lukes very own moral framework. What is lukes moral framework? Lukes moral framework, as mentioned previously, is about being "traditional" "Return to tradtion" whatever these things mean. Clearly he believes in the values of a nuclear family, religion, capitalism (he hates coperate modern capitalism but wishes to return to smol boi capitalism that is more akin the mercantilism) He believes that women belong in the kitchen and than "the nigs" are dumb ignorant apes. Such is "tradition" Marxists on the other hand see and understand the ineptitude of both the liberal and conservative/reactionary ideology. We see and understand the world as a series of material and historical events that have cumulated to this point in time (whatever point in time it may be) We don't "belive in equality" We believe that all men should have the free unabashed oppertunity to preform labor at the end of the day. It's basically a bingo card for strawmans against marxism at this point...I digress. The funniest part about this is when he brings up the fact that plants have pheremone responses to stimuli that can signal to their networks that something is happening. Not only is there zero evidence to suggest at all that this is "pain" but it wouldnt even make any sense because plants do not have a central nervous system. But none of that even matters, because at the end of the day this argument is never made it good faith. This argument is only made by meatards in order to justify their own unhealthy and low IQ eating habits. If Luke or anyone in this discourse actually cared about plants then they still would be vegan, as has been pointed out innumerably by every vegan pretentious and not and inbetween for the last 15 years because cows consume such a vast amount of resources including the agregate of plant matter. Plants for animal food in modern capitalism account for a whoping 75% of all plant material consumed. He then goes on to say "well then why don't you just eat nothing then" Which is just a childish snide remark I wont get into having refuted his logic above.

  • 4. Vegans are edgy and rebellious

    I wont spend a ton of energy here cause I find this section to be a bit frivolous as all luke prattles on about is that it's upsetting him that people are rebelling against systems they find unfavorable to them and that if "every one would just grill bro" we'd all be ok. It's clear that luke doesn't understand that capital doesn't and will never stop accumulating and the "modern" world as he calls it is going to keep infiltrating his life until he does something to stop it. Why do you think "uncle ted" as is colliquially put, moved so far out in the woods and it still wasn't good enough. Ted would routely write about hating hikers and hunters and the like because you can't truly escape the ever expanding nature of capitalism. It never stops growing, never. Of course luke in his brain envisions dumb liberals in pussy hats when he thinks of "rebellion." He then goes on to say that vegans and marxists and the other spooks he has logdge in his frontal cortex are simply "moral fags doing it for the upcummies" and I am sure for plently of hipster caffee liberals that luke has interacted with in his increadibly privlege existence That is the case. but for most normal working people who have adapted these political stances it is because we have exausted all other options. It is because the endless greed and accumulation of capital has driven people out of their homes, their familial ties, and yes, their traditions and tossed them into the meat grinder. "Rootless" as luke has said before is a good way to describe it and this is why we have adapted these stances.

  • 5. Veganism can only exist in the bugman enviroment

    Luke enjoys painting a false dichotomy: To luke there is only "The evil bugman world of coperate capitalism" and the nice chad world of "traditional values and familial bonds living in le woods" When the reality is that this is a false dichtomy that ignores that there is a future a head of us. A future that will not stop, a future that will go on with or with out us. History, if you will. Looking to the past as luke does serves nothing. "The past refuses to die as the future struggles to be born now is the time of monsters" This is what perfectly codifies our modern existence and the ideology of our friend luke here. Luke is the monster, the bugman who disowns his own kind. Veganism as an ideology doesn't require modern coperate capital to survive (though the networks it has constructed certaintly can help) Let me explain... Veganism as an ideology shouldn't be enforced. This is my own personal belief. I think that people should be free to make thier own choices in life. I do not think that dairy products , or, egg products, honey, etc etc etc should be banned. I do think that going forward meat itself should be banned and alternatives should be put in their place by the federal government (however that may look in the future) but, let's look at a future society. I would have no issue with a society where industrial farming has been done away with and small scale farming opperations are the norm. I think that eating milk and dairy bi-products from these animals in these settings is perfectly reasonable and healthy. In no way is that souly deppendant on "bugman society" as he so elloquently puts it. But, let's look at veganism. As was mentioned prior, capitalism has created boundless wealth and out of this wealth a vast ammount and network of resources have been created. Accoriding to luke the issue is that these things are inhernetly bad because they themselves are part of the coperate machine and as such are bad. Luke doesn't seem to understand that in a world absent of an economic system of profit (capitalism) these net works would still exist. People under a communist socety, let's say, would work not for profits but for their own needs, as we should be doing. Luke here is basically fasely equivocating the supply chain to the economic system as a whole.

  • 6. Conclusion

    After this luke then goes on to say that "well what are you going to do let them all just go and get eaten" to which my response to this question has always been "Well we are the ones who got the animals here in the first place" I understand it is increadibly soy and idealistic to expect that we can just magic animals back into the wild. That cows could be reverted to their ancient equivalent Aurochs and of course that is impossible, but, we as people are the ones who have gotten and manipulated and evolved these animals to this point in the first place and my argument to these has always been that onus rests on us and our shitty behavior as stewards of this planet and the driving mechanisms of capital expansion. So in clonclusion: Luke is every bit the bugman he despises. He hates modern capitalism, but, thinks the answer is found in the other end of the coin his answer is still consumption it is just consumption in the other direction "Consoom the traditional family" "coonsum le meat" "coonsoom coonsoom coonsoom" never stop coonsoming. That is the modo of capitalism and the modo of luke smith appears to be "the answer to consumption is still consumption." Wether he realizes it or not. Not only does he hold out right reactionary beliefs, but, he also is the very bugman he claims to hate. A different breed of bugman is still a bugman. The true answer to these questions is the same as it has been for the last 200 years since the establishment of marxism as a sceince. To look at the world, things, and ideologies from a materialistic and historical lense and examine them critically. Veganism as an ideology is rought with liberals and soyboys and psuedo-intellectuals and people like luke smith are there waiting and lurking ready to take advantage of these naive individuals wanting to jump on the latest bandwagon. Luke Smith wants you to hate one side of the coin while persisting off the existence of the other side of the coin. To moan endlessly about Capitalism and "Modernism" but never actually doing anything about it. It is this reactionary mindset, riddled with contradiction that I want to expose in this man. The answer is not found with in capitalism, but, with out it.