Only 1% of the American population identifies as vegan (a person who refrains from using or consuming any animal products), and around 3% of the population identifies as vegetarian. It is therefore a little confusing as to why American political and social discourse is hijacked by vegan issues so often.
Leftist activists have adopted the age-old mantra that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil"; but imagine a wheel that never gets enough oil? Imagine a movement specifically designed to keep society constantly on egg shells, trying to figure out different ways to satisfy that squeaky wheel so it will finally shut up?
One eventually has to ask the obvious question: Why don't we simply throw that insufferable wheel in the garbage?
A perfect example of why Americans need to start aggressively discriminating against veganism as a movement has popped up in Oregon. A new initiative called the PEACE Act (IP28) has enough backing to make it on the state ballot in November. The initiative originally gained support as a way to "end animal cruelty", but the details of the proposed law turned out to be a vegan's version of Orwell.
The petition has more than 120,000 signatures, according to the Oregon secretary of state’s office. The campaign needs about 117,000 valid signatures to make the ballot. Initiative Petition 28 would expand animal cruelty protections in Oregon by effectively giving “all” animals the same protections currently in place for dogs and cats, supporters say. Opponents argue the measure would go much further, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing and raising animals for food.
It's important to understand that vegan activists and leftists in general do not operate from a basic understanding of the environment. They know next to nothing about the science behind these issues and legislate from a purely emotional position. Banning hunting would effectively destroy various wild animal populations, causing disastrous disease outbreaks that the hunting community has kept in check for decades.
That said, a lot of attention in the media has been paid to the hunting side of this law while the biggest impact would be felt in cattle farming and the fishing industry in Oregon. If passed, the law would effectively criminalize the entire meat production base for the state under "animal cruelty" statutes.
No state has the capacity to sustain on a mass vegan diet, so, animal products would have to be shipping in from the rest of the country, driving up prices.
Of course, this tiny minority of militant animal rights activists are not working alone. They are able to thrive and organize because they have a host of international NGOs and politicians working with them. These institutions act as amplifiers for activist groups that would otherwise go completely ignored. The United Nations, for example, has long been involved in global efforts to remove meat from the menu for most of the human population.
The UN fabricated the notion of animal agriculture acting as a primary mechanism for greenhouse gases and global warming. Of course, there is zero evidence of a causation or correlation relationship between animal methane and changes in the Earth's temperatures, just as there is no concrete evidence of a connection between human industry and climate change.
One can speculate as to why the UN is so interested in eliminating meat from the human diet, but stopping global warming is certainly not the real reason.
Global warming claims continues to be debunked as one of the biggest hoaxes of the century, and the idea of compelling the public to stop eating meat in the name of "saving the climate" just isn't going to work. It would appear that the political left and their NGO backers intend to criminalize meat if they can't convince people to go vegan voluntarily.
This is why the majority of Americans distrust and despise vegans: It not because they've chosen a different lifestyle, it's because they are obsessed with forcing that lifestyle on everyone else.