Home / Global Warming / Rachel Premack: “Have Progressive Causes. Will Work for Tofu.”
Print Friendly and PDF

Rachel Premack: “Have Progressive Causes. Will Work for Tofu.”

Written by Gary North on August 6, 2016

You have never heard of Rachel Premack. Admit it.

Until July 3, neither had I.

On that day, Ms. Premack got her 15 minutes of fame. These minutes marked her as spokesperson for a Progressive generation that is utterly devoid of common sense.

At about 4:30 a.m., a news story that quoted Ms. Premack in detail was the #3 story on Drudge. It was right there under the bold headline: OBAMA SENT $400 MILLION CASH TO IRAN AS AMERICAN PRISONERS FREED.

Tax meat until it’s too expensive to eat, new UN report suggests
That is a true “red meat” headline for meat-eaters, meaning just about everyone.

The story appeared on an otherwise invisible site, www.iceagenow.com. It’s here.

Meat should be taxed at the wholesale level to raise the price and deter consumption, says a new report from the UN’s International Research

Panel (IRP). This will (supposedly) save the environment and prevent global warming.

“I think it is extremely urgent,” said Professor Maarten Hajer of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, lead author of the report. “All of the harmful effects on the environment and on health needs to be priced into food products.”

This is the standard Progressive party line. It has not changed in a century. Progressives want to use state coercion to help shape people’s behavior in ways deemed suitable by Progressives. The word “progressive” means: “nanny with a gun in a disarmed population.” This is why Progressives want gun control. They want a state monopoly of gun ownership. “Nanny has your best interests at heart. You must listen to nanny. You must do what nanny says.”

The article went on to quote Ms. Premack as an authority.

“The evidence is accumulating that meat, particularly red meat, is just a disaster for the environment,” agrees Rachel Premack, a columnist for The Washington Post’s Wongblog. [Actually, it’s Wonkblog. It has nothing to do with China.]

“Agriculture today accounts for for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions that promote global warming,” says Premack, “and half of those agriculture emissions come from livestock.”

“Agriculture consumes 80 percent of water in the US — most of that being for meat, says Premack. “… For a kilogram of red meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.”

“Meanwhile, Denmark is considering a recommendation from its ethics council that all red meats should be taxed,” Premack continues. “The council argued in May that Danes were “ethically obliged” to reduce their consumption to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”


Red meat is a red flag to Progressives. It always has been. Hard-core Progressives have been vegetarians for over a century. This was true of the Fabians in England, who always had an oversupply of vegetarians in their ranks, most notably the playwright George Bernard Shaw.

The problem for the Fabians’ ideological heirs is this: they also want to eradicate poverty by having the state steal from the rich and give to the poor (minus 50% for handling). This political program is promoted in the name of middle-class values. Their problem is this: middle-class values, most notably the desire to get rich, led to increased wealth whenever they are adopted in a private property-based society. Problem: increased wealth leads to an increase in the consumption of meat — all over the world. This creates consternation among Progressives.

(For the rest of my article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Comments are closed.