Covering-up Animal Rights

Unfortunately, as important as Animal Rights issues are to us, to those who pay the piper and call the tune, who own and advertise animal products, what we say is unimportant. But to be on the safe side they demand there be ‘no-tune’ at all - if animal issues are not on the public mind, that’s where they should stay.
To them we are a nuisance. Veganism and all that animal rights stuff has to be downplayed. If the Animal Industry had to comment at all, they’d say it was “all bullshit”, although they’d much prefer to ignore it altogether.
The Industry spends big dollars to advertise in the media; they therefore have the power to discourage the media from taking up or even alluding to Animal Rights. That’s chiefly why it isn’t discussed or looked into. In fact the subject is a non-subject (not story-worthy, for if it doesn’t ‘turn on’ the customer it isn’t a story worth developing.) Professional writers wouldn’t dare suggest “vegan is good”. If they did they’d be obliged to follow it up. If they gave it any credence how could they then justify not following it up?
If they investigated the Animal Industries they’d soon enough lose their job, and anyway an omnivore journalist is hardly likely to sympathise with our case by arguing against their own lifestyle. We don’t yet have any brilliant vegan journalists (powerful or brave ones) who can communicate on this subject. A jobbing journalist certainly wouldn’t risk their reputation writing about it and risking exposing their own double standards. It’s a noble calling, writing for a living. There are codes of conduct, so when a journalist actually suppresses a story they contravene their own code. They pride themselves on showing courage by exposing wrong, so if they purposely avoided one particular wrong they’d need good reason. Could this issue be too dangerous to cover? Here’s a journalist’s dilemma, damned if they do and damned if they don’t - if they avoid animal issues their integrity is called into question. In their profession they theoretically aim to expose the Truth. They don’t claim to possess it but aim, “by sincere exertion” to get to the Truth”. As representatives of the Fourth Estate, that’s a hefty responsibility.
Our particular branch of the truth (concerning the mass slaughtering of animals, every day, in every corner of the world) is a sensitive matter, possibly too sensitive for ordinary people to look too closely at the provenance of some of our foods. We have to remain emotionally unaffected by information about animal-enslavement. All grown ups know they must hide it from their kids. “Don’t mention it in front of the children”. If they knew (about abattoirs and farms) we’d have junior revolution on our hands.
Sadly it’s also true that no one with any influence in our society will say veganism is right. Every time it does get a mention it is dignified just that much more. If it were to be taken seriously that would suggest it might be worth some attention, which would lead to empathy and a wish to protect the weak. That’s why ‘speciesism’ must always remain a ‘non-subject’, to which no currency is given. There must be little mention of routine cruelty or the debilitation caused by ingesting animal foods. Animal Rights must remain a non-issue, allowing food to be a happy subject and one connected with the art of cuisine and sound nutrition. Food has been cleverly de-issued. Brilliant strategy!!
So, okay, you’d agree that it’s very unlikely that anyone who writes for a living is going to take up this germ of an idea (that animals shouldn’t be used), and run with it. And they won’t because, behind vegan principle, there’s a fear of depth - a level of thinking that might lead to something deeper, giving credence to such a thing as a plant-based diet. For writers, this has to be “a subject which does not need following up”.
If Animal Rights became an interest point, a subject regularly written about or discussed on TV and radio, oh how quickly the truth would seep out. There’d be frantic attempts to rubbish the subject, make it look dull or whacky or anything, just as long as the customer continued to shun it and go on accepting and accommodating the cover-up.
The interests of the public and the Authorities coincide here. The general tactic for dealing with this difficult matter is to casts a hazy acceptable-ness over the whole lot. The subject is protected: we always protect what we value most, in this case our food.
Shine a light on this subject and it could dramatically affect each and every individual who eats ... and everyone eats. So not only do the Animal Industries want to keep it tabooed but, in the interests of just about every food eater on the planet, the subject’s hidden. Oh, what a glorious circular conundrum we vegans have, as we try protesting and attempt to act as animal advocates!
If our voices do ever rise up, then other voices will attempt to silence us. But hey, we’ve just moved into the Information Age, where lots of secret things are being brought into the public domain. Just look at Wikileaks. They’re doing right now. In fact, when you think about it (and most omnivores will not be WANTING to think about it and so won’t be reading these words anyway), this is the ONLY subject which is in the interests of everyone to keep quiet about ... keeping this quiet lets everyone carry on as usua ... eating animals. And let’s not get too precious about those who call themselves ‘vegetarians’ but who aren’t really vegetarian at all because they know full well (or ought to by now) that plenty of animals suffer and die to provide them with their favourite foods. We execute all animals horribly. We imprison all animals in slums. We feed all animals toxic materials which are associated with terminal diseases for the humans who eat animal products. These ‘food’ animals have to live lives of hell. All of them are executed not only to provide us with meat but (at the end of their foreshortened life of production) with their secreted ‘by-products’.
Arghh, wot an ugly matter this is for humans. It’s in our interests not to get too interested in this subject. “Animal Rights -ZERO interest please”.
So, you see what I mean? This is such a tight corner everyone’s in. Not only journalists but teachers, preachers, fathers, mothers and everyone in every branch of human society is implicated and wanting NOT to touch this matter.
Sorry, did we lose you? ... this is the matter of using or not using animals.
If our arguments were to be given any weight in the media (and people reacted in horror and shock, accordingly) what precisely would happen to our society? Probably not a lot. Which spells the final humiliating disaster on humankind. That it is a sham. That it isn’t really kind at all, in fact it has almost become totally hardened. And what is worse, humans have become reliably predictable, and in one way in particular - we’ve developed an ability for double-think.
Since most of us use a ‘forgetting mechanism’, we can feel strongly about something today in the certain knowledge that it will be of no importance by tomorrow. “Double-think”? ... maybe that’s the wrong word? Perhaps plain old “avoidance”?
People have always HAD to react this way, ever since they were exposed, via mass media, to printed or transmitted stories. And now it’s just “too much, too much”. We’re almost forced to turn documentary into fiction, just to make incoming information digestible ... so as not to become completely overwhelmed.
It’s a bit like witnessing a bank robbery, all filmed at the time, seen by millions on the News, and then forgotten about by the police simply because they weren’t interested in this particular robbery. And just as weird if the media didn’t want to cover the robbery either. We’d normally call that a ‘cover-up’. So, that’s what I think we have here.
Let’s be hypothetical and say very negatively that the discussing of Animal Rights in public won’t ever happen.
See where that thought leads us? The reason it won’t be taken up is because vegans have woven such a tight argument that no one dares face it. The reason it’s so dangerous is that it’s simple. Nothing very complicated about it all. A three year old could grasp the main vegan arguments. In fact, like a bomb waiting to go off, I have a feeling on this subject - if it goes it’ll go off explosively.
From The Authority’s point of view, therefore, public compliance is a must. They impose almost ‘Inquisitional strictures’ on the media, to keep this whole matter quiet. The most repressive dictator couldn’t do a better job on ‘freedom of speech’ than we do here, in our so called free-world democracies, by gagging uncomfortable truths.
Vegan principle has been magnificently gagged. If we’d ever had something worth hearing, it would have been be an idiot journalist who’d given it any weight. For a start they’d be admitting that they, personally, had been fooled along with the rest of the punters. And then they’d admit they’d deliberately avoided a subject, in order to protect a lifestyle which they themselves had long since practised. No one, least of all a journalist, would admit that much and not be committing professional suicide.
That’s a rather creepy thought, wouldn’t you say? No one is actually admitting that vegans have a case to argue!