Varg Vikernes (ThuleanPerspective) vs Vegan, THE SEQUEL!

This is a follow-up video to my previous video response to Varg Vikernes, aka ThuleanPerspective.

Varg left a number of comments on my previous video, to which I told him a video response would be forthcoming. This is that video.

Before I begin, it is important to emphasize that my arguments do not come from hypothetical scenarios, like extreme survival.

We live in a modern, technologically-advanced age. And unless we take a giant leap backwards, I would assume we will continue to progress technologically and in methodology.

At least here in the West, that is.

The West being a documented force to be reckoned with when it comes to scientific accomplishments, according to research by political scientist, author, and columnist Charles Murray.

Thus, my arguments are born of the age and manner in which we currently live in. Not some past era, niche community, or hypothetical scenario.

And as I’ve said in my previous video, if everything were to collapse tomorrow, and we found ourselves thrust into extreme survival, then extreme measures… including the hunting and eating of people… might become our reality.

Just look at the current situation in Venezuela, for one unfortunate example. Where they’re resorting to eating garbage, pets, and their dead!

As a martial artist, I will quote Bruce Lee here:

“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”

In other words: adapt. If times and circumstances change, adapt. But, for now, given current conditions, there is no reason why I, and others, cannot adhere to a vegan lifestyle.

Varg, however, tends to appeal to tradition, to times past. How things were. And what things were necessary in those bygone eras.

But, I suppose that is in his nature.

Nonetheless, appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. The reasoning for that is: just because something was practiced or even deemed necessary at one point in history, does not imply that it should be practiced or is necessary today.

Thus, appeals to tradition are not an ample argument for or against something as things are.

We live in the modern age. Whether you, the viewers, like that or not.

And in this modern age, by allowance of modern technology, to meet the needs of our growing populations — we do rely on modern agricultural practices.

And the way we are going, that isn’t likely to suddenly vanish, but rather to continue to advance.

Though, with those advancements, I would hope we also move toward an even cleaner energy source, and stop relying on archaic fossil fuels. In other words, advancements across the board.

That all being said, not all of us live in the remote manner in which Varg does. And I am not even sure if the entire population, as it is, could realistically sustain that chosen lifestyle, off-the-grid, globally.

Thus, that is not a current reality for most folks.

Now, that being said, interestingly enough, the VEGAN prepper / survivalist lifestyle does appear to be a thing. And there are blogs out there providing advice on it, including how to handle harsher times — like winter.

But, back to topic… keeping CURRENT reality in mind, if you compare the modern agriculture practices which feed the modern citizens of Western civilization, you will realize that veganism is FAR more sustainable AS THINGS ARE than omnivorism.

According to a large report released by the UN in 2010: animal agriculture, in particular, is responsible for large amounts of freshwater use, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions.

And the UN recommends a global shift toward a VEGAN diet to combat this problem. To step AWAY from animal agriculture.

And this sentiment was echoed and elaborated upon further by Oxford University research just 6 years after the UN’s research.

And here, going by a Foodwatch report based on German research, is a visual graphic comparing the emissions by agriculture for vegans vs. vegetarians vs. diets including meat.

Now, that all being said, you don’t have to purchase produce imported from Asia, for instance. In many cases, you can make the choice of what you wish to buy and from where.

For instance, folks in the US, Canada, and the UK have the option of getting locally-sourced produce at stores like Whole Foods Market, which pride themselves on a mission of sustainability and environmental-friendliness IN this modern age.

Now that we have that long opening statement out of the way, let’s tackle some of Varg’s comments to my video directly.

“Cancer related to meat concumption has nothing to do with meat being dangerous to us. The problem is the crap they feed animals with. If you eat vegetables growing next to a high way, you will get health issues too, but not because vegetables are bad for you.”

Can you provide evidence for your statement? The burden of proof is on you.

The IARC paper, which I shared in my previous video, did not make such distinctions. Rather, the main pre-requisite was merely consumption, with the exception of processed meats, which by definition, require processing like salting, curing, fermentation, or smoking.

“Yes, everybody can lack B12. But more Vegans do than meat eaters do, because they are Vegans.”

Again, sources?

In my previous video I shared a USDA statement, based on the ongoing Framingham Offspring Study, which clearly stated that 39% of Americans are low-normal in B12, and 16% are below deficiency. Vegans only make up 0.5% of the US population.

This is basic math.

Even if you incorrectly assume that all vegans are deficient, that still leaves a whopping 38.5% of American NON-vegans that are low-normal in B12, or 15.5% NON-vegans that are below deficiency. Depending on how you apply that 0.5%.

Unfortunately, I do not have statistics on B12 deficiency among vegans, specifically, or in comparison to meat-eaters. But, I am not deficient, and I am a vegan. My fiancée is also not deficient, and she is a vegan.

So, even if we are the only two vegans who are not deficient, which would be an incredibly bold statement to say the least, that still concludes that not all 0.5% of vegans are B12 deficient, thus, the number of deficient meat-eaters is inevitably going to be high.

“Let’s not make appeals to tradition.” Why not? That’s what Traditionalists do…”

Rewind this video, I already discussed why this is a logical fallacy, and thus has no place in intellectual debate.

“I don’t care what doctors or organizations say. They are all on someone’s paylist, and have been proven again and again to be full of crap . They say whatever people with money want them to.”

Implying or claiming that something is false based on the premise that you simply don’t believe scientists or doctors is not an argument… it is essentially a logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity.

And I suppose it is also an ad hominem FALLACY.

Don’t like the research I’ve provided to support my arguments? Then it is up to you to provide sufficient and valid counter-evidence to refute said arguments.

Disbelief, or attacking the ENTIRE medical and scientific community because some in those communities are unscrupulous, doesn’t count as valid counter-argument.

“You missed A LOT. Like the fact that Vegan women are close to sterile, and that 99% of Vegans are weaklings and that they are because they are Vegans.”

Citations for “Vegan women are close to sterile”, please. The burden of proof is on you to support your own statement.

Based on a cohort study out of Harvard University, with a participant size of 18,555 married women, which was conducted to evaluate whether the intake of animal or plant protein is associated with ovulatory infertility, found that protein from animal sources, including chicken and red meats, was associated with an increased risk of infertility, whereas protein from vegetable sources appeared to have the opposite effect. And this is in line with previous research on the animal model.

The authors speculate that this is due to animal protein’s effect on circulating IGF-1 levels, and subsequently, IGF-1’s effect on the development of polycystic ovary syndrome.

Also, I need citations for your “99% of Vegans are weaklings and that they are because they are Vegans” statement. Again, that old burden of proof, Varg.

You see, I could cite anecdotes like: vegan strongman Patrik Baboumian, or vegan Mr. Universe Barny du Plessis, or vegan olympic lifter Kendrick Farris, or even the myriad of vegan MMA fighters including, but not limited to Nick Diaz, Nate Diaz, Jake Shields, and Mac Danzig.

But, hey, you’d likely just accuse them of steroid use and secretly eating meat.

Just like you did to me, before deleting the comment. My activity drop-down doesn’t forget, though.

I do find it hilarious how people tend to suddenly forget that non-vegans ALSO use steroids for muscle or performance when they see a muscular vegan.

Ad hominem fallacy, Varg. Not an argument. And for the record: I never took steroids a day in my life, and I do not sneak animal products either.

But, back to the point: anecdote is not sufficient evidence for or against something. Not for me, not for you.

Like your anecdotal stories that you love to share… as do your followers.

Or should I believe that SMOKING is the key to longevity because some Nepali woman claims that smoking 30 cigarettes-a-day, for 95 years, helped her live to 112?!

You see, anecdote lacks the sample size, methods, and controls that scientific research has. It also isn’t subjected to peer review. Therefore, you cannot accurately conclude anything from it. You can only draw speculation, possibly correlation, but certainly not causation.

So, let’s forget anecdote… rather, here’s a little science for you!

It is concluded that a vegan diet causes a substantial increase in SHBG, but this has little effect on free testosterone or estrogen.

In fact, vegans have 7% higher TOTAL testosterone levels than omnivores, but the SHBG is what essentially brings the FREE testosterone count down to the level of omnivores.

And FREE testosterone is what really counts, anyway. So, there appears to be no issues with the primary “male hormone” on a vegan diet. A hormone that is vital to size and strength.

Vegans, just like meat-eaters, are only as weak as they allow themselves to be. By choices they make, or even by willful ignorance.

Or should I accuse meat, dairy and eggs of being inadequate because I OBSERVE a shit-ton of weak skinny or fat people in the gym and on the street every day?

And vegans are a minority of the population, after all. So, most of these people must eat animal products.

Vegans are fully-capable of surviving and THRIVING on their diet, at any stage of life, so long as they eat appropriately.

And that’s a twice-peer-reviewed statement.

Anyhow, please drop some comments below. I’d love to hear your continued thoughts on the matter.

However, let’s keep it intellectual and respectful.

Even if the majority of Varg’s followers act like degenerates, calling people “fags”, “gay”, “lesbians”, etc. instead of tactfully taking on ANY given argument.

Just remember, it only makes them look bad. Don’t sink to their level. Allow that sharp behavioral-contrast to be witnessed in high-definition.


Leave a Comment: