Veg*n Antagonist Lierre Keith Pied in the
Face at 2010 SF Anarchist Bookfair
by nothing with a face
Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 12:02 AM
Bound Together Books and PM Press continue to try to prop up and foist
veg*n antagonist Lierre Keith onto the radical community in the Bay
Area. Today, at the 15th Annual San Francisco Anarchist Bookfair, where
she was scheduled to be a featured speaker, Keith was served her just
deserts for her obnoxious attacks on veg*ns in The Vegetarian Myth. She
was pied in the middle of her speech in the main auditorium at the SF
County Fair Building in Golden Gate Park.
The myriad logical fallacies and other personal, logical, and factual
problems with Lierre Keith's misanthropic book need not be reiterated
here. A thorough debunking of her attack on veg*ns was posted on Indybay
last June when Bound Together Books first invited her to speak about her
Lierre Keith's Elaborate, Self-Congratulatory Excuse for Abandoning
If her book had been written as a good faith effort to start a
discussion about the topics of vegetarianism and industrial agriculture,
it certainly would not have evoked such a visceral reaction from veg*ns.
But that's not how Keith addressed the subject. She instead chose to
rebuke her own former vegan self by verbally assaulting all veg*ns,
calling them ignorant and child-like, sometimes based on nothing more
of anonymous online comment threads or her own
Phony environmentalist omnivores like her buddy Derrick Jensen -- who
farcically claimed the "book saved my life” -- might find the gratuitous
attacks on veg*ns self-satisfying or validating, but the insults and
invective directed against veg*ns have been taken, not surprisingly,
quite personally by veg*ns everywhere who are aware of the book,
sometimes by having had it thrown in their faces by those who mistakenly
believe the book to be the last word on vegetarianism. And surely it was
a reaction to these attacks that led the culprits of the pieing to feel
compelled to take symbolic action against Lierre Keith at the very
moment she was being held up as a paragon of radical thought by Bound
Together Books at this year's Anarchist Bookfair, normally a
Some will condemn the pieing as a useless symbolic action. Others will
object to the breaking of decorum at the bookfair. Many of those who
might condemn the action would not think twice about praising other
symbolic direct actions, pieing or otherwise. It is doubtful if her book
were "the anarchist myth" or "prison activist myth" that anyone present
would do anything but cheer the action.
Some will undoubtedly argue that the pieing was an attack on free
speech, but Keith has been afforded more speech than most people on the
planet will ever be, courtesy of PM Press. In fact, she is profiting
from the soap box she has been given to pretend she is a radical
environmentalist who just happens to jet around the country to and from
her home in rural Massachusetts. In a world where vegans and vegetarians
are a definite minority, face constant bombardment with pro-meat
messages our American cattle culture, and frequently have to deal with
direct attacks from
that profit from the sale of
factory-farmed meat and dairy, Ramsey Kanaan of PM Press, himself a
long-time vegan, strangely chose to pile on with yet another attack on
veg*ns, this time being especially traumatic in that it comes from the
inside of the supposed radical environmental movement. (Was the book
printed in part to curry favor with Derrick Jensen who now publishes
through PM Press?) Through the Bound Together collective, of which
Ramsey Kanaan is a member, Lierre Keith has been asked to speak in the
Bay Area repeatedly. The mean-spirited book and these speaking
engagements are largely one-way conversations with Keith dominating the
But today, anonymous masked peoples stood up and refused to allow PM
Press and Bound Together to yet again try to cram Lierre Keith down our
throats. They stood up for many who have suffered silently, without a
voice, since the publication of her book. We don't want what you are
her book is abusive, but maybe she got pied because she
hates trans people too by not a victim Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 10:34 AM In her
book, Lierre attacks vegetarians for having eating disorders and other mental
disorders. She says claims that any sadness or anger on their part is due to...
guess what? a lack of protein! Thanks Lierre, for pushing another sexist agenda
saying that women's anger is down to biology! Or maybe she got pied because her
book is also racist... ignoring the all non-western cultures eating a vegetarian
diet. (For those who were there, maybe it was the person who introduced her that
pied her! - I wouldn't blame him.) Or maybe she got pied because she was a
founding (and continuing) member of RadLesFes, a group that characterizes
trans-women as having "surgical, chemical or psychological mutilation". When you
pathologize people in this way, you are going to make some fast enemies.
report from later appearance yesterday on Keith's shoddy
"science" by check this Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 6:59 PM
She originally said she wasn't going to take questions, and I was disappointed
by this, but honestly, I can't blame her. She had been through a lot already (it
was not an edible pie that was thrown at her), and when you go through something
traumatic like that, it's perfectly reasonable to want to take it easy for a
After she finished her talk, though, she did say she'd take a few questions, but
no hostile questions. vegimator started on a question which included to list a
number of places in which she said things that were factually inaccurate or
misrepresentative of the sources she cited. The first of these inaccuracies was
the outrageous claim, from page 215 of the book, that a cup of soy milk contains
60 grams of soy protein. Lierre seemed confused and tried to deny that the book
said this. vegimator persisted, and she said she was bored and had him skip
through the rest of the list of inaccuracies and cut to the question. His
question was (roughly), if so many of the claims for which I have some point of
reference are false, it's hard for me to trust the claims you make on the things
I don't know anything about, so can you say anything in to inspire confidence
that this isn't representative of the quality of your research. Her answer was
that she had 199 footnotes in the chapter on nutrition and we could look at the
This might be a reasonable answer if there weren't instances in which she had
made false claims and badly misrepresented her sources. Here's my favorite
example of this happening (page 203):
Lierre Keith wrote:
We’ve been doing what we’ve been endlessly badgered to do since the 1960s. We’ve
eaten, according to the USDA, less fat, less meat, fewer eggs. Our dietary fat
has fallen 10 percent, hypertension has dropped 40 percent and the number of us
with chronically high cholesterol has declined 28 percent.
Her citation for the claim of decreased meat and fat intake is from Gary Taubes'
Good Calories, Bad Calories: "According to the USDA, we have been eating less
red meat, fewer eggs, and more poultry and fish; our average fat intake has
dropped from 45 percent of total calories to less than 35 percent..." (xvii).
The USDA data show that the increase in poultry and fish intake has more than
made up for the decrease in red meat; total meat consumption has increased (http://ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumptio
As for fat, the USDA data show that our capita dietary fat intake increased from
135 g to 178 g between 1960 and 2006 (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USFoodSupply.htm).
As Taubes wrote, the percentage of calories coming from fat did decrease, but
this was because we increased our daily calorie consumption from 3100 to 3900.
It's incorrect for her to say that we're doing what we've been "endlessly
badgered" to do. Nobody in the nutritional mainstream badgered us to increase
our fat intake but increase our sugar intake even more. (And confusing percent
decrease with percentage point decrease doesn't inspire a whole lot of
Loved this by Moss Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 7:24 PM She
was pied, get over it. Big deal, even IF it was a spicy pie. Somebody call the
waaaambulance for this loser. This action was both hilarious & totally
appropriate. Anarchist resources should not be for posers just promoting the
status quo. Her very presence there was very inappropriate. Who next, Valdas
Analuskas or David Irving? They've been trying to be heard in activist
spaces/resources & getting shut down by anarchists. I've heard they're just
Lierre the "radical" betrayed her privileged perspective
by immediately calling for police by Officer Friendly Sunday Mar 14th, 2010
7:36 PM Lierre obviously comes from a privileged perspective if the very first
thing she said was "someone call the cops" as only the privileged automatically
think of police as their friends and defenders. Lower classes and darker skinned
people do not immediately look to police for help. They'll take the help if it's
there, but they don't assume police generally exist to serve them.
She didn't curse the attackers or anything else. Her very first thought and
action was to call for police. Think about it.
Lots of people in America think that way, so it's not surprising, just most of
them aren't invited special guests at anarchist book fairs in San Francisco.
The Greeks who spoke at the fair said they wanted rapists out of prison. Keith
wants pie throwers in prison. Think about that.
It wasn't us by vegimator Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 9:14
PM This is the content of that edited post:
Here are some of the bullet points I have so far-
Don't you think it's convenient that in your claim that plants need to eat
animals to survive, you overlook that our veggies don't torture and kill us to
get their nutrients and that they have no capacity for ethics unlike humans?
"built my whole identity—on the idea that my life did not require death." - page
18. The goal of veganism is to reduce suffering and the infringement on other
creatures interests. The interests of a cow take greater precedence over the
interests of a million nematodes because nematodes have no central nervous
How does she account for the factual errors (lies?), especially at the beginning
of the book where she claims there are no sources of vegan tryptophan (soy has
more tryptophan than any meat except codfish), and that there's no way to get
enough saturated fat as a vegan (uh... how about coconuts?)
One from Alex. "Another good lie is the extra-deceptive chart of characteristics
between Humans, Dogs, and Cows that she claims proves that humans are meant to
eat meat. The funny part, of course, is that dogs don't need to eat meat either.
If she compared humans to cats, she'd see how different humans are to actual
She talks about plants being as worthy of our compassion as animals because
trees warn each other of impending stress by releasing chemicals, etc, but this
just shows an evolutionary advantageous stimulus response and not cognition or
pain perception. Ability to transmit information does not equal sentience.
A hunter gatherer world at anything near our current population would only
devastate the earth much quicker than current harmful agricultural techniques.
Does she propose that 10 billion people (estimated world pop by 2050) could
really live on grass fed beef/hunting and gathering?
Why is it that grass-fed meat fans like her and Pollan can never stick to their
own advice? Pollan has admitted he eats factory farm meat sometimes and on her
own blog she demonstrates her own hypocrisy by buying (grass-fed?) candy bars -
http://lierrekeith.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/halloween-09/ and grain-fed
bacon from this farm which she declares "perfect"
http://lierrekeith.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/the-trip-home/ (From their web
site "As much as they love tearing up the grass with their snouts, pigs won't
get fat on pasture alone. We supplement our hogs' feed with organic whey left
over from nearby Cowgirl Creamery's cheesemaking operations, along with a custom
blend of organic grains."). (Alex discovered those blog posts btw.)
Relatedly, wouldn't it be more ethical of her to be living in the forest hunting
and gathering rather than self-publishing books printed on trees (most likely
from a south american rain forest)?
I'll have to double check but I think she blames vegan soy consumption for
damage to the amazon forest. We could roll that into the above point and also
point out that the overwhelming majority of Brazilian soy is grown to feed
livestock and that there's no reason soy (a natural nitrogen fixer which doesn't
even require manure and is already grown in the United States) couldn't be grown
So what??? by Mike Desert Sunday Mar 14th, 2010 11:10
PM Mayor Willie Brown got pied, Anita Bryant got pied, Ralph Klein got pied. The
only difference is that Lierre is a nobody.
She CALLED THE COPS at an anarchist book fair and said "I don't give a fuck
about anarchists". I think anyone who says that pieing her is disrespectful is
missing the point of who the target is.
Tho I may be a veg*n, I'm not opposed to differences of opinion, but her sources
are very questionable (weston a price foundation?? That's like taking
psychiatric advice from L Ron Hubbard)
re: eyes are still recovering even today from the damage
by calling out BS Monday Mar 15th, 2010 9:29 AM The picture in comments above
shows none of the facial redness you'd expect after being pied with pepper. Do
you know anyone who's been pepper sprayed? I assure you they don't look as pale
as Lierre did in the picture above within an hour of being peppered.
She spoke in public later that same night and was fine, and now you, anonymous
commenter, assure us all that her eyes still hurt two days later.
I'm calling out your BS right here and now.
Basically, the pepper lie is what she needs for two reasons. One, to justify her
running away and calling police as if she's just gotten beaten up or worse.
Calling police for a pieing is not very "anarchist". Second, it works perfectly
with the entire "vegans are evil" myth she keeps trying to spread to anyone who
will listen. And it seems like there is a receptive and loyal audience for that
message, people who will believe any old crap she tosses their way.