For vegans we see a hugely ugly world of animal abuse everywhere we go, we smell the cremated remains of once-living animals from every kitchen window we pass. We run the gauntlet in the supermarket between racks of meat and shelves full of animal by-products. But beyond kitchens and shops there’s another, more optimistic reality. This reality shows potential for change. It lets us see things from another perspective as our best chance to save this frightened planet.
Mind over matter. We all create our reality. Especially we get what we want when we do things co-operatively. Together … ah! But how do we get agreement?
What we see is (approximately) what we get. If we see ugly we’ll get ugly. If we see ugly our mood is gloomy. If we’re negative about the ‘future of humanity’, the planet, etc., we’re doomed. The future awaits us.
Science fiction has a lot to say about the future. We’re entertained by it but that’s all. It doesn’t actually help us ‘get to’ the future. Nor does it say anything about the ‘humanity of humans’-to-come. The emphasis is nearly always on the cruel future, with its cruel people. That’s the stuff of sci-fi. The fear of these worlds-to-come presses down on us. We’re sucked into negative stuff and even though it hurts we can’t get enough of it, for it relates back to present day habit trends We revel in our own inevitable degradation.
Science-fiction never shows how it all may change positively if we could drop the habits of short term pleasure and ‘stuff the future’. Older people, especially, find habit change near-to absurd. “Not productive enough to alter the world”!! Their own dwindling years are for them to ‘enjoy things’. “Change” is not fun! To them changing habits seems close to madness – changing the habits of a lifetime for the ‘sake of humanity’ does NOT appeal to the rational thinker. For them there’s no time for all this. “Nor do we have the patience” (to address any of this, right now!)
So the cycle continues. Earth, they say, is the university planet, where we learn the rules of the game, or more precisely, re-learn what we’ve forgotten. And if that takes many lifetimes to achieve, then so be it.
Eventually the penny has to drop, where we learn about tolerance and how to “live” together, where we do the least possible damage to each other (which of course includes all life-forms). In other words we learn to recognise the ‘significance of humanity’.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Intellect
Amongst the ‘still-asleep’ (the majority, the omnivore group) there’s something good. There’s wonderful acceptance and beauty and kindness, but nevertheless they are made dull by complicity with animal cruelty. The omnivore always wears the badge of the ‘animal club’. They may seem relaxed about things but those with the loudest inner voice are pushing it down against reflux, pushing down against the devil in us. That voice. That ‘unacceptable attitude-within’. That struggle. It wears people down. It puts life on hold. It has significance in the development of our personality.
Humans solve problems and invent gadgets and, for pragmatic reasons, set the mind to take control. We worship intellect and use it to control things; we attempt soul-control, mind-control, body control … until it all breaks down and we take on a bias. We settle for partiality, where logic rules (‘okay?’) but with exceptions. Like we know we’re capable of love by showing love to dogs but then we have to realise we’re also capable of not-loving pigs. Kind to dogs: murderous towards pigs.
Here’s where the word ‘love’ rings a bit hollow. And it’s where humans, with their fast cognition, are held back by their own thought processes, habits and fears. Essentially we are all held in contract to habit. Self-made and strengthened habits are something of which Western lifestyle is redolent.
Habits call for walls to be built; so omnivores are mainly held back by food walls. Habits are what we don’t want to be reminded of … since we’re afraid of the ‘unspecified dangers’ associated with them. To maximise peace of mind we draw up a contract, something like this:
If we can keep our habits we’ll accept a certain unquestioning attitude to Present Day Reality – a little nonsense mixed into our truth-pie. When we enter a ‘no-thought-zone’ we go for what looks real. Reality trumps intellect. For habit-driven people, in that zone, life is doing what we want without “thought”, ‘thought’ being associate with pain, and self-brought-on pain at that. If we’re in the grip of the ‘no-think-world’ we won’t see the potential of humanity.
Like our friend Mother Nature, this very potential invites us to the dance tonight. R.s.v.p.! This is the dance of balancing “thought” with “no-thought”, in which we aren’t afraid to be ourselves. Not afraid to unafraided-ly THINK about certain things and use intellect for the purpose to which it was intended.
Humans solve problems and invent gadgets and, for pragmatic reasons, set the mind to take control. We worship intellect and use it to control things; we attempt soul-control, mind-control, body control … until it all breaks down and we take on a bias. We settle for partiality, where logic rules (‘okay?’) but with exceptions. Like we know we’re capable of love by showing love to dogs but then we have to realise we’re also capable of not-loving pigs. Kind to dogs: murderous towards pigs.
Here’s where the word ‘love’ rings a bit hollow. And it’s where humans, with their fast cognition, are held back by their own thought processes, habits and fears. Essentially we are all held in contract to habit. Self-made and strengthened habits are something of which Western lifestyle is redolent.
Habits call for walls to be built; so omnivores are mainly held back by food walls. Habits are what we don’t want to be reminded of … since we’re afraid of the ‘unspecified dangers’ associated with them. To maximise peace of mind we draw up a contract, something like this:
If we can keep our habits we’ll accept a certain unquestioning attitude to Present Day Reality – a little nonsense mixed into our truth-pie. When we enter a ‘no-thought-zone’ we go for what looks real. Reality trumps intellect. For habit-driven people, in that zone, life is doing what we want without “thought”, ‘thought’ being associate with pain, and self-brought-on pain at that. If we’re in the grip of the ‘no-think-world’ we won’t see the potential of humanity.
Like our friend Mother Nature, this very potential invites us to the dance tonight. R.s.v.p.! This is the dance of balancing “thought” with “no-thought”, in which we aren’t afraid to be ourselves. Not afraid to unafraided-ly THINK about certain things and use intellect for the purpose to which it was intended.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Avoiding vegans
These days the lifting of awareness is fast, for those who choose to lift it. Fear holds others back, and that’s mostly down to misinformation.
Vegans need to dig out the worst lies and the best truths and mark them down. We need to lay them out, but without weighing down the table with too much information. First we need to work out which truths to emphasise. Today we’re greedy for knowledge, reacting perhaps to recent days of information-shortage, and now we have to sort the important from the less important, whilst at the same time juggling every argument that makes some so and other matters less-so.
At the moment many people (in almost all countries) are accessing new information and finding things out for themselves. Isn’t that wonderful? But “many” people? Are there many? Even today, there are too few who’re digging deep. The vast majority hasn’t grasped the situation (especially about the causes of animal farming, health and environmental melt-down). If it is grasped one might prefer to ‘sleep it out’.
The majority are still snoring upstairs, asleep and unaware, sleeping to take away the pain of knowing. By having to confront the latest information when awake we associate ‘being awake’ with an unpleasant need to turn a blind eye all the time. Sleep is a refuge from the daytime pain of having to be partial. Being partial is accepting some things but not others. Our society tells us what is important and what other important things are to be deemed NOT ‘important’.
Oh dear! How it’s all changed today. Now, in this information revolution we’re experiencing, we’re putting two and two together. So much has been withheld. So much taught wrongly. So much misinformation has been confirmed by people we’ve believed in, who were our staff of life, who are the authorities; now we’ve swung right across and perhaps too much is presently being undermined – again perhaps a reaction to another shortage from recent years, freedom to speak out.
Today we are able to attach importance to matters that were recently considered unimportant. Yes, of course, the animal thing springs to mind. But other matters too, concerning the environment, malnutrition and illiteracy, have recently blasted their way into our consciousness. Many people are still too stunned to act. They’re mainly stunned by the brazen way authorities have so callously misinformed us. And they’ve pulled this off by getting to know us, that we’ll believe any old nonsense when everyone else believes it. Everyone eats animals … so it must be true! Emperor’s clothes syndrome!
The new information (I say ‘new’ in the sense of unsullied), which we pick up from the Internet, might be disturbing. It may make people want to go back to sleep … because they see no future. (Even intelligent people I know, kind, good people, subscribe to this ridiculous ‘give-up-on-humanity’ mentality. They say they prefer to ‘sleep it out’ … the human race being “fucked”. Finding out new stuff only adds to the general frustration of living.
Omnivores, if they knew anything about ‘vegans’ might consider us to be part of The False Hope Brigade. They reckon meeting vegans depresses you. I’m painting omnivores here as ‘not very happy campers’. Omnivores want to keep smiling. They prefer NOT to create more depression for themselves - so they avoid meeting vegans. In some ways I can’t blame them. Vegans can be such a bunch of whingers sometimes. But don’t tell anyone I said so, okay?
Vegans need to dig out the worst lies and the best truths and mark them down. We need to lay them out, but without weighing down the table with too much information. First we need to work out which truths to emphasise. Today we’re greedy for knowledge, reacting perhaps to recent days of information-shortage, and now we have to sort the important from the less important, whilst at the same time juggling every argument that makes some so and other matters less-so.
At the moment many people (in almost all countries) are accessing new information and finding things out for themselves. Isn’t that wonderful? But “many” people? Are there many? Even today, there are too few who’re digging deep. The vast majority hasn’t grasped the situation (especially about the causes of animal farming, health and environmental melt-down). If it is grasped one might prefer to ‘sleep it out’.
The majority are still snoring upstairs, asleep and unaware, sleeping to take away the pain of knowing. By having to confront the latest information when awake we associate ‘being awake’ with an unpleasant need to turn a blind eye all the time. Sleep is a refuge from the daytime pain of having to be partial. Being partial is accepting some things but not others. Our society tells us what is important and what other important things are to be deemed NOT ‘important’.
Oh dear! How it’s all changed today. Now, in this information revolution we’re experiencing, we’re putting two and two together. So much has been withheld. So much taught wrongly. So much misinformation has been confirmed by people we’ve believed in, who were our staff of life, who are the authorities; now we’ve swung right across and perhaps too much is presently being undermined – again perhaps a reaction to another shortage from recent years, freedom to speak out.
Today we are able to attach importance to matters that were recently considered unimportant. Yes, of course, the animal thing springs to mind. But other matters too, concerning the environment, malnutrition and illiteracy, have recently blasted their way into our consciousness. Many people are still too stunned to act. They’re mainly stunned by the brazen way authorities have so callously misinformed us. And they’ve pulled this off by getting to know us, that we’ll believe any old nonsense when everyone else believes it. Everyone eats animals … so it must be true! Emperor’s clothes syndrome!
The new information (I say ‘new’ in the sense of unsullied), which we pick up from the Internet, might be disturbing. It may make people want to go back to sleep … because they see no future. (Even intelligent people I know, kind, good people, subscribe to this ridiculous ‘give-up-on-humanity’ mentality. They say they prefer to ‘sleep it out’ … the human race being “fucked”. Finding out new stuff only adds to the general frustration of living.
Omnivores, if they knew anything about ‘vegans’ might consider us to be part of The False Hope Brigade. They reckon meeting vegans depresses you. I’m painting omnivores here as ‘not very happy campers’. Omnivores want to keep smiling. They prefer NOT to create more depression for themselves - so they avoid meeting vegans. In some ways I can’t blame them. Vegans can be such a bunch of whingers sometimes. But don’t tell anyone I said so, okay?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
The vegan detective agency
Vegans talk about feeding the world, saving the animals, health, environment, all the big things. But we’re not selling soap powder we’re selling dynamite, for use in unearthing the truth and exploding myth.
Our credentials might be clean and our message clear but nothing in life is going to be straight forward. For us it’s like trying to solve a murder mystery. We work for a detective agency, helping people spot who’s crooked and who’s innocent. The vegan detective agency is on the trail of the ring leaders, of course, the fear-makers and crap sellers. But we’re also showing where Fear lurks. We demonstrate how to be safe.
To fulfil our commission we’re alert day and night, ready to shine a torch on all dodgy motives and fear induced decision-making. Safety is what we sell. Our message: vegan food is safe, vegan conscience is safe, vegan reputation and relationship is safe. For vegans this is a safe universe we live in.
If we are in conversation with someone, whatever the subject and however sensitive it is, our job as animal advocates is to stress that we live in a perfectly safe universe and it’s only fear that makes it not so. If we’re ashamed of something we do it’s made that much worse by the fear of changing against our will. We fear the suddenness of circumstance and our inability to adapt sufficiently or quickly enough.
In this drama called ‘life’ there’s fear, but there’s also boredom. They come as a pair. Everything is happening and nothing happens: there seems to be nothing we can do to fix things, we’ve nowhere to go. We fear circumstances will take over, imposing economic constraints and other difficulties. But we could be talking about veganism and all the consequences flowing from that. Our job as vegans is surely to reduce the fear associated with radical change. To explode that fear, to identify the cause of it, to help others feel better about the way things are moving is to emphasise the positive signs of change.
Our ally is the computer, for this is where we solve the crimes. This is where, today, we use our imagination and creative skills. There’s access to information today. And information is the key here. It’s food for the brain. It’s our creative powers restored to us. It gives us an invaluable overview. It gives us clues and shows us where the bodies are buried. But we have to act on information, for until we take up the leads the crime doesn’t get solved .
Our credentials might be clean and our message clear but nothing in life is going to be straight forward. For us it’s like trying to solve a murder mystery. We work for a detective agency, helping people spot who’s crooked and who’s innocent. The vegan detective agency is on the trail of the ring leaders, of course, the fear-makers and crap sellers. But we’re also showing where Fear lurks. We demonstrate how to be safe.
To fulfil our commission we’re alert day and night, ready to shine a torch on all dodgy motives and fear induced decision-making. Safety is what we sell. Our message: vegan food is safe, vegan conscience is safe, vegan reputation and relationship is safe. For vegans this is a safe universe we live in.
If we are in conversation with someone, whatever the subject and however sensitive it is, our job as animal advocates is to stress that we live in a perfectly safe universe and it’s only fear that makes it not so. If we’re ashamed of something we do it’s made that much worse by the fear of changing against our will. We fear the suddenness of circumstance and our inability to adapt sufficiently or quickly enough.
In this drama called ‘life’ there’s fear, but there’s also boredom. They come as a pair. Everything is happening and nothing happens: there seems to be nothing we can do to fix things, we’ve nowhere to go. We fear circumstances will take over, imposing economic constraints and other difficulties. But we could be talking about veganism and all the consequences flowing from that. Our job as vegans is surely to reduce the fear associated with radical change. To explode that fear, to identify the cause of it, to help others feel better about the way things are moving is to emphasise the positive signs of change.
Our ally is the computer, for this is where we solve the crimes. This is where, today, we use our imagination and creative skills. There’s access to information today. And information is the key here. It’s food for the brain. It’s our creative powers restored to us. It gives us an invaluable overview. It gives us clues and shows us where the bodies are buried. But we have to act on information, for until we take up the leads the crime doesn’t get solved .
Monday, July 26, 2010
Violence Mark II
If a submarine can’t withstand the pressure, and it can’t be taken down deep enough to reach the sea bed, another machine has to be built to go down deeper. For us, trying to get to the bottom of people’s thinking, we have to have a subtler and stronger machine. An approach full of creativity and engagement. We’re not converting the heathens we’re simply attempting to get to the bottom of this warped attitude about animal-use in our society.
Omnivores hold animals in contempt …
“What? I love animals! How dare you say I hold them in contempt?”
The omnivore sees animals as inferior because they can’t feel or think as we can and can’t defend themselves against us. How this impacts on animals isn’t important – they deserve our ‘contempt’. Perhaps deep down we humans have contempt for any weakness, like the inability to defend oneself, like the animals. Would that be a typical predator attitude warped by humans? Have we leapt from the pastures of survival to the palaces of cushions and did the spring in our step come by way of violence? (that’s the warped-by-human variety, the ‘violence mark II’ version of violence, which came about after the mid 1940s in the West.)
The holding of animals in contempt allows us to exploit them in order to enjoy all their good-to-eat qualities.
This warping of the basic predator instinct may be the result of a very deliberate flouting of rules. Gassing Jews and caging hens happened at about the same time and is a good example of Mark II violence. There was a major outcry when people learned about the Holocaust. At the same time what was beginning to happen to farm animals was so diabolical that it alerted early vegans to risk all to prove the point - that we need no animal products to survive and therefore we can make our peace with them.
Vegans did, and still do, mark that switch from how we felt as kids to how we feel now as adults. (As kids we use naked love to relate and as adults we use contempt to get what we want). This solid attitude barrier is put into place, it’s our passport to adulthood. It’s an initiation which is deep-set throughout the whole of human society.
Those who break this culture, vegans, might approach omnivores with some trepidation. We may seem to come in as outsiders who’re trying to be a good influence – who need to be sharply turned away. People are not stupid; they know how to push us away. (They may be mad enough to be omnivore but they aren’t completely daft). Whether we’re talking about kids being in danger from weirdos or adults being alert to dangerous ideas, all people, whether adult omnivores or children, know when they’re “being approached in an inappropriate way”. If vegans come on too strong they’ll be pushed away. This is why we, as vegans, should try to communicate “animal rights and veganism” as if we’re offering up the keys to the kingdom. We hardly need to come on with the attack approach.
Omnivores hold animals in contempt …
“What? I love animals! How dare you say I hold them in contempt?”
The omnivore sees animals as inferior because they can’t feel or think as we can and can’t defend themselves against us. How this impacts on animals isn’t important – they deserve our ‘contempt’. Perhaps deep down we humans have contempt for any weakness, like the inability to defend oneself, like the animals. Would that be a typical predator attitude warped by humans? Have we leapt from the pastures of survival to the palaces of cushions and did the spring in our step come by way of violence? (that’s the warped-by-human variety, the ‘violence mark II’ version of violence, which came about after the mid 1940s in the West.)
The holding of animals in contempt allows us to exploit them in order to enjoy all their good-to-eat qualities.
This warping of the basic predator instinct may be the result of a very deliberate flouting of rules. Gassing Jews and caging hens happened at about the same time and is a good example of Mark II violence. There was a major outcry when people learned about the Holocaust. At the same time what was beginning to happen to farm animals was so diabolical that it alerted early vegans to risk all to prove the point - that we need no animal products to survive and therefore we can make our peace with them.
Vegans did, and still do, mark that switch from how we felt as kids to how we feel now as adults. (As kids we use naked love to relate and as adults we use contempt to get what we want). This solid attitude barrier is put into place, it’s our passport to adulthood. It’s an initiation which is deep-set throughout the whole of human society.
Those who break this culture, vegans, might approach omnivores with some trepidation. We may seem to come in as outsiders who’re trying to be a good influence – who need to be sharply turned away. People are not stupid; they know how to push us away. (They may be mad enough to be omnivore but they aren’t completely daft). Whether we’re talking about kids being in danger from weirdos or adults being alert to dangerous ideas, all people, whether adult omnivores or children, know when they’re “being approached in an inappropriate way”. If vegans come on too strong they’ll be pushed away. This is why we, as vegans, should try to communicate “animal rights and veganism” as if we’re offering up the keys to the kingdom. We hardly need to come on with the attack approach.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Truth and time
Truth lies sprawled flat on the sea bed, resting like a camouflaged octopus, awaiting the next disturbance, to get things moving along. Truth in Nature has a different time-line to ours (she having lived longer than the ‘poor’ humans!)
Nature, like any other predator, strikes when she sees an opportunity. She however, unlike any other predator, doesn’t need to eat her prey. All she needs is protégé. She needs our company. She’s mum downstairs waiting for us, upstairs, to wake up … we ain’t that much fun asleep … and previously she’s only had the animals to play with (humans having been such dull playmates for centuries now).
Upstairs she can hear our grunts and shiftings, and guesses it’s time to ‘get up’. Nature calls her invitation up to us, to come down for breakfast. R.S.V.P.
Humans have sat on their cushions too long without getting up, standing up for the greater good. Is it sleep or was it drug-induced? Anyhow, it was a long period of dark, muddled thinking – humans not seeing the dangers and wonders, and having therefore no reason to wake up. And only when disaster strikes, as presently, do we review the situation. Thoroughly … when, unfortunately, the sun has been up for hours and the day’s nearly over. We’re late to repair. We see the problems, see the repair and then with all-brain-no-sense we make the whole job complicated and long winded.
We have the potential to fix things, we always knew that, and yet it eludes us. We know that humans, when the chips are down, do adapt and can plan ahead, but the trouble is we’re always running late. We should start repairing things earlier than we do - why are we so ‘eleventh hour’ about things? Surely this shows (in all of us) an astounding level of insecurity and selfishness.
Surely we each have insight, foresight, ‘sight’ for heaven’s sake. We can see up ahead, we can spot the looming train-on-the-line and get out of its way. Not difficult. But we’re mesmerised by something, and “we know not what it is”.
We’re perhaps in the grip of post-modern madness, or rather “post-nursery” juvenility. We don’t take to repairing things, kids never think about that. We leave it to others. Post-nursery adults can’t quite grow up in that we can’t even make an intellectual response to this one serious adult suggestion - to be nicer people. We can’t seem to get around to improving our relations with whomsoever we need to (and we now know by going vegan we can with animals). This is the goal of Animal Rights and Veganism. Indeed this may be the only substantial goal the human race needs.
What about our relationships? Perhaps we’ve all the right equipment to be a good lover but we just need to be nicer with it or more aware of what we do with it. Our next step is always opening of consciousness.
It’s not as if we don’t frequently project an image of ‘the highly-sensitive-human-of-the-future’ but we just never get around to applying ourselves to work on it.
Until we do, Nature won’t trust us, mainly for not owning up to what we’ve done. She doesn’t need to know about the whole crime but she needs to see in our eyes that we have a new intention: not to do it again. To know that we’ve learned our lesson.
She looks ahead and looks forward to see the truth coming out in us. She’s over all our mea culpas (admitting all those “things we ought not to have done”), she’s a waiter. She waits for us to wake up properly before coming downstairs for breakfast. She’s been up all night, kept from rest by the incessant noise we’ve been making. Even if Nature has been sorely injured by humans she’s a patient patient. No hurry-hurry. She’s been here before!
She knows how to wait for us to become self-generators.
Nature, like any other predator, strikes when she sees an opportunity. She however, unlike any other predator, doesn’t need to eat her prey. All she needs is protégé. She needs our company. She’s mum downstairs waiting for us, upstairs, to wake up … we ain’t that much fun asleep … and previously she’s only had the animals to play with (humans having been such dull playmates for centuries now).
Upstairs she can hear our grunts and shiftings, and guesses it’s time to ‘get up’. Nature calls her invitation up to us, to come down for breakfast. R.S.V.P.
Humans have sat on their cushions too long without getting up, standing up for the greater good. Is it sleep or was it drug-induced? Anyhow, it was a long period of dark, muddled thinking – humans not seeing the dangers and wonders, and having therefore no reason to wake up. And only when disaster strikes, as presently, do we review the situation. Thoroughly … when, unfortunately, the sun has been up for hours and the day’s nearly over. We’re late to repair. We see the problems, see the repair and then with all-brain-no-sense we make the whole job complicated and long winded.
We have the potential to fix things, we always knew that, and yet it eludes us. We know that humans, when the chips are down, do adapt and can plan ahead, but the trouble is we’re always running late. We should start repairing things earlier than we do - why are we so ‘eleventh hour’ about things? Surely this shows (in all of us) an astounding level of insecurity and selfishness.
Surely we each have insight, foresight, ‘sight’ for heaven’s sake. We can see up ahead, we can spot the looming train-on-the-line and get out of its way. Not difficult. But we’re mesmerised by something, and “we know not what it is”.
We’re perhaps in the grip of post-modern madness, or rather “post-nursery” juvenility. We don’t take to repairing things, kids never think about that. We leave it to others. Post-nursery adults can’t quite grow up in that we can’t even make an intellectual response to this one serious adult suggestion - to be nicer people. We can’t seem to get around to improving our relations with whomsoever we need to (and we now know by going vegan we can with animals). This is the goal of Animal Rights and Veganism. Indeed this may be the only substantial goal the human race needs.
What about our relationships? Perhaps we’ve all the right equipment to be a good lover but we just need to be nicer with it or more aware of what we do with it. Our next step is always opening of consciousness.
It’s not as if we don’t frequently project an image of ‘the highly-sensitive-human-of-the-future’ but we just never get around to applying ourselves to work on it.
Until we do, Nature won’t trust us, mainly for not owning up to what we’ve done. She doesn’t need to know about the whole crime but she needs to see in our eyes that we have a new intention: not to do it again. To know that we’ve learned our lesson.
She looks ahead and looks forward to see the truth coming out in us. She’s over all our mea culpas (admitting all those “things we ought not to have done”), she’s a waiter. She waits for us to wake up properly before coming downstairs for breakfast. She’s been up all night, kept from rest by the incessant noise we’ve been making. Even if Nature has been sorely injured by humans she’s a patient patient. No hurry-hurry. She’s been here before!
She knows how to wait for us to become self-generators.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
No thanks - not if you’re vegan
“Someone at the door”- and another voice from inside, “Tell ‘em to piss-off if they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses”.
It’s not much different for vegans trying to get a toe hold on the private beliefs of omnivores. We know they want us to piss off and indeed can see why - we vegans are distasteful people. We stir. But as people we needn’t be distasteful nor in fact give them any excuse to dislike us. They may dislike the message but not the messenger.
We all feel distaste but perhaps we should reserve it for the animal industry - for their cruelty but mainly for their use of sophisticated methods to hook people on their ‘stuff’. Misinformation is everywhere, poured out in messages on air and in the print media. This distaste we all feel, it may be undefined but unless you’re moving towards becoming a vegan you won’t want it to be defined.
We’re putting things off in a very weird way, we humans. It was never just a matter of “not knowing” about this - we’ve known about it since the 1970s. And it’s clear to everyone that things have gotten much worse since then. It’s diabolically worse now than it was a quarter of a century earlier, and then it was worse than the post 45 war period. We knew a vegan diet could work, we therefore knew from then, especially since the seventies, all about it, but still we’ve delayed. Over fifty years.
The question is why? If we can discover the answer to this we’ll know what we’ve always been afraid of. And then presumably we can vanquish the demon.
Vegan diets, post mid-1940s, were soon enough scientifically approved. Now, half a century later, we’re still not getting it. We’re still ignoring it in the vain hope that it will go away … or something. If in our daily life we do get round to thinking about it we might do well to look deep. To see beyond the superficial.
This whole Animal Rights and Vegan thing was never going to be a list of platitudes from a whingeing mob, but an intelligent argument presented by caring-, thinking-people. In our heart of hearts I think all people realise that this is a major statement of our time. But we’ve a way to go.
Before all this can happen there’s a trail of communicators, advocates and activists who make it their business to process information. But, for them it was never going to be straight forward. After hammering at the door and wrapping at the window and never getting inside we know it’s more than just disseminating information. It includes the settling of old scores and generally re-learning how to get on with people, people who disagree with you (which is just about everyone!!). Our job, as vegans, is surely to fix this approach-thing first. And funnily enough we may be in the best position to do just that. By trying to communicate bits and pieces of our ‘message’ with the emphasis on being NOT PUSHY, we allow the no-use-animal idea to take shape in people’s minds.
It’s not much different for vegans trying to get a toe hold on the private beliefs of omnivores. We know they want us to piss off and indeed can see why - we vegans are distasteful people. We stir. But as people we needn’t be distasteful nor in fact give them any excuse to dislike us. They may dislike the message but not the messenger.
We all feel distaste but perhaps we should reserve it for the animal industry - for their cruelty but mainly for their use of sophisticated methods to hook people on their ‘stuff’. Misinformation is everywhere, poured out in messages on air and in the print media. This distaste we all feel, it may be undefined but unless you’re moving towards becoming a vegan you won’t want it to be defined.
We’re putting things off in a very weird way, we humans. It was never just a matter of “not knowing” about this - we’ve known about it since the 1970s. And it’s clear to everyone that things have gotten much worse since then. It’s diabolically worse now than it was a quarter of a century earlier, and then it was worse than the post 45 war period. We knew a vegan diet could work, we therefore knew from then, especially since the seventies, all about it, but still we’ve delayed. Over fifty years.
The question is why? If we can discover the answer to this we’ll know what we’ve always been afraid of. And then presumably we can vanquish the demon.
Vegan diets, post mid-1940s, were soon enough scientifically approved. Now, half a century later, we’re still not getting it. We’re still ignoring it in the vain hope that it will go away … or something. If in our daily life we do get round to thinking about it we might do well to look deep. To see beyond the superficial.
This whole Animal Rights and Vegan thing was never going to be a list of platitudes from a whingeing mob, but an intelligent argument presented by caring-, thinking-people. In our heart of hearts I think all people realise that this is a major statement of our time. But we’ve a way to go.
Before all this can happen there’s a trail of communicators, advocates and activists who make it their business to process information. But, for them it was never going to be straight forward. After hammering at the door and wrapping at the window and never getting inside we know it’s more than just disseminating information. It includes the settling of old scores and generally re-learning how to get on with people, people who disagree with you (which is just about everyone!!). Our job, as vegans, is surely to fix this approach-thing first. And funnily enough we may be in the best position to do just that. By trying to communicate bits and pieces of our ‘message’ with the emphasis on being NOT PUSHY, we allow the no-use-animal idea to take shape in people’s minds.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Nursery teas
Most omnivores are still in the nursery, particularly for the nursery teas - cream buns and jam tarts firing nostalgia for nanny-life. In the nursery we might be looking forward to a ‘chicken-tonight’ dinner with chocolate cake afters. We know there’s a never ending supply of treats out there in our Stuffed Western World. We also know that what we stuff into ourselves has very little to do with nutrition or substance. It’s just that we are umbillically connected to the ‘yummy-yummies’. And will be so till the day our mortal-threat kicks in. And then, sadly and most unnecessarily, it will be the eleventh hour.
The truth of my own life comes down to whether the next bit is going to be an agonising deterioration of body and conscience or the best days of my life.
Why should opting for the obviously happier route seem like such a gamble? Why is going vegan still looking like self sacrifice? Maybe it’s just a puff of self-delusion, for aren’t we prevaricating between making one of two choices? Is my life about “my fun” or “my planet”? It’s one quick personal decision. It can happen in the blink of an eyelid.
Maybe, we might say, it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe it’s best not to stir the hornets nest. Omnivore-thinking!
But maybe it’s time to drop the baby life. And grow up. On plants. The truth of this isn’t really the problem. The idea of a vegan life itself is not so unpalatable. It’s not the big bogie here. It’s something else – “that which we can hardly mention” … but which “we know its feeling”. “It”, the fear-maker is identity-less. It’s the great big Today Taboo. We know it’s that because it’s got one of those ‘Jahweh-grips’ on us - we dare not speak its name. (Not dissimilar to the homosexuality taboo of old). This one is fostered by the Animal Industry: to “not speak about the food-animals”.
So powerful are the businesses comprising the Animals Industry (they might range from grocers and butchers right through to the abattoirs and farmers) that they rule us with a rod of iron. They know how to attack our weakest point, namely our penchant for re-entering babyhood via addictive chemicals. They supply the chemical, we supply the dollar.
In exchange for the ‘tasties’ and ‘naughties’ the omnivore must tip them the wink. Disassociators refuse their lethal misinformation and their products … and if that means missing out on the nursery teas, well, so be it.
The truth of my own life comes down to whether the next bit is going to be an agonising deterioration of body and conscience or the best days of my life.
Why should opting for the obviously happier route seem like such a gamble? Why is going vegan still looking like self sacrifice? Maybe it’s just a puff of self-delusion, for aren’t we prevaricating between making one of two choices? Is my life about “my fun” or “my planet”? It’s one quick personal decision. It can happen in the blink of an eyelid.
Maybe, we might say, it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe it’s best not to stir the hornets nest. Omnivore-thinking!
But maybe it’s time to drop the baby life. And grow up. On plants. The truth of this isn’t really the problem. The idea of a vegan life itself is not so unpalatable. It’s not the big bogie here. It’s something else – “that which we can hardly mention” … but which “we know its feeling”. “It”, the fear-maker is identity-less. It’s the great big Today Taboo. We know it’s that because it’s got one of those ‘Jahweh-grips’ on us - we dare not speak its name. (Not dissimilar to the homosexuality taboo of old). This one is fostered by the Animal Industry: to “not speak about the food-animals”.
So powerful are the businesses comprising the Animals Industry (they might range from grocers and butchers right through to the abattoirs and farmers) that they rule us with a rod of iron. They know how to attack our weakest point, namely our penchant for re-entering babyhood via addictive chemicals. They supply the chemical, we supply the dollar.
In exchange for the ‘tasties’ and ‘naughties’ the omnivore must tip them the wink. Disassociators refuse their lethal misinformation and their products … and if that means missing out on the nursery teas, well, so be it.
Getting rid of vegans
Thursday 23rd July 2010
We don’t necessarily need to draw attention to ourselves. And yet there’s no reason not to be absolutely outrageous. However we decide to ‘do’ it, let’s hope we never dress down our subject. It never needs to be dour, Animal Rights. (I’ve never seen a dour looking animal in my life!)
This is a subject that only wit and humour can do justice to. The gullibility of the omnivore is so ludicrous that there’s a fruitful supply of satirical material just waiting to be plucked. Best thing about being omnivore is the silliness of it. But we shouldn’t be laughing. This is a serious subject. We aren’t trying to tell jokes at a funeral. We have to be a bit serious-serious about Animal Rights.
But more importantly, whether we send it all up or talk deadly seriously about it, a plan is needed. The success of any ‘heist’ rests on the plan-of-approach. Equipment in place, gelignite ready, good plan? Probably better to know the combination of the safe, it’s quieter. People are already deafened by the noise of our message. They just want us to go. Away.
When we’re communicating our message (message-schmessage!) what is it that is actually getting across? It’s the feely-feelies; it’s not what we say it’s how we present. Impact. Straight to the point, clear … this is what we’re showing of ourselves and this is what we’re trying to say, “bottom line”. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings or satirise them (although it’s tempting!!), nor punish, nor finger-wag, just get down to brass tacks.
The base-line truth here: they do wicked things so don’t support them; hens are put in cages, pigs in body-hugging steel frames and this is the horror. To a claustrophobic like me this is THE horror. But me talking to you about this, right here, we are not at issue over misunderstanding – the message was never going to be difficult to understand nor, from a vegan communicator’s point of view, ever particularly unapproachable. What we are seeing here is a mass turning away. A “go away” which is beyond logic and argument, beyond plans for the future. It’s simply primary self-protection that blames this subject for ganging up on my ‘feely-feelies’. It looks as though it hurts. The medicine’s too strong. Vegan.
Are we not witnessing the storm before the calm here? Where we are at hour eleven, and in this last ridiculous flutter of immaturity we see a mere glitch of chemistry working on us. This is surely the barrier here; omnivores are chemically imbalanced at the very thought of giving up all the ‘nice foods of life’.
What we, as animal advocates, are up against here is resistance.
People have built concrete-filled barriers. And, apart from those few vegan-born kids, we’ve all succumbed to it, the indulgencies and then the building of walls-of-resistance. Omnivores deliberately and self-protectingly ignore the horrible truths of animal farming. And they daily strengthen their walls at the behest of the appalling Animal Industries.
What a vegan has to say to omnivores isn’t so much complicated as confronting. (That’s presently our problem, and why we don’t get ourselves lynched I can’t understand). Our logic is all very clear so, normally, you’d expect the omnivores to swing over in droves, but they don’t … not yet anyway. Is this because of a tiny glitch in our self image, so small we hardly need to bother with it, yet so big we kid ourselves it’s small? Almost all of us have regular grumblings of stomach (needing refill) and twitterings of those brats-cum-connoisseurs, the addictive taste buds and their close cousins who’re also in the receptor business. In other words we have our ‘little weaknesses’. We call it “favourite foods”. They’re our friends and we love them. “No”, we say, “we won’t go-vegan”, in fact as first line of defence we say “vegans go”.
We don’t necessarily need to draw attention to ourselves. And yet there’s no reason not to be absolutely outrageous. However we decide to ‘do’ it, let’s hope we never dress down our subject. It never needs to be dour, Animal Rights. (I’ve never seen a dour looking animal in my life!)
This is a subject that only wit and humour can do justice to. The gullibility of the omnivore is so ludicrous that there’s a fruitful supply of satirical material just waiting to be plucked. Best thing about being omnivore is the silliness of it. But we shouldn’t be laughing. This is a serious subject. We aren’t trying to tell jokes at a funeral. We have to be a bit serious-serious about Animal Rights.
But more importantly, whether we send it all up or talk deadly seriously about it, a plan is needed. The success of any ‘heist’ rests on the plan-of-approach. Equipment in place, gelignite ready, good plan? Probably better to know the combination of the safe, it’s quieter. People are already deafened by the noise of our message. They just want us to go. Away.
When we’re communicating our message (message-schmessage!) what is it that is actually getting across? It’s the feely-feelies; it’s not what we say it’s how we present. Impact. Straight to the point, clear … this is what we’re showing of ourselves and this is what we’re trying to say, “bottom line”. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings or satirise them (although it’s tempting!!), nor punish, nor finger-wag, just get down to brass tacks.
The base-line truth here: they do wicked things so don’t support them; hens are put in cages, pigs in body-hugging steel frames and this is the horror. To a claustrophobic like me this is THE horror. But me talking to you about this, right here, we are not at issue over misunderstanding – the message was never going to be difficult to understand nor, from a vegan communicator’s point of view, ever particularly unapproachable. What we are seeing here is a mass turning away. A “go away” which is beyond logic and argument, beyond plans for the future. It’s simply primary self-protection that blames this subject for ganging up on my ‘feely-feelies’. It looks as though it hurts. The medicine’s too strong. Vegan.
Are we not witnessing the storm before the calm here? Where we are at hour eleven, and in this last ridiculous flutter of immaturity we see a mere glitch of chemistry working on us. This is surely the barrier here; omnivores are chemically imbalanced at the very thought of giving up all the ‘nice foods of life’.
What we, as animal advocates, are up against here is resistance.
People have built concrete-filled barriers. And, apart from those few vegan-born kids, we’ve all succumbed to it, the indulgencies and then the building of walls-of-resistance. Omnivores deliberately and self-protectingly ignore the horrible truths of animal farming. And they daily strengthen their walls at the behest of the appalling Animal Industries.
What a vegan has to say to omnivores isn’t so much complicated as confronting. (That’s presently our problem, and why we don’t get ourselves lynched I can’t understand). Our logic is all very clear so, normally, you’d expect the omnivores to swing over in droves, but they don’t … not yet anyway. Is this because of a tiny glitch in our self image, so small we hardly need to bother with it, yet so big we kid ourselves it’s small? Almost all of us have regular grumblings of stomach (needing refill) and twitterings of those brats-cum-connoisseurs, the addictive taste buds and their close cousins who’re also in the receptor business. In other words we have our ‘little weaknesses’. We call it “favourite foods”. They’re our friends and we love them. “No”, we say, “we won’t go-vegan”, in fact as first line of defence we say “vegans go”.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Don’t get caught!
Vegans, what are they really like? Everyone is different and yet vegans do share one thing, they’ve gone where others haven’t dared to go. Some are testing the communication boundaries too. No big deal particularly, everyone achieves something where others can’t … but the Really Big Deal is that they’ve gone exploring. And they’ve possibly explored hidden depths and found a particular power in themselves … and are presently trying to work out how best to use it.
Unfortunately they’ve inherited an image problem. In public they, as people who take the moral high-ground, are often seen as people-to-be-afraid-of. Vegans have to put up with the tag, the image and the fear. It’s perhaps none of our own making but we have to cop it all the same. For the second-guessed vegan, ‘exploring’ has to be done without getting caught! If we are sprung asking too many questions, we may spoil a whole channel of communication for the future, for others too who’ll come later.
Perhaps being cunning enough not to be sprung, not to be caught, is just a reminder that we should tread respectfully, not so much because exploring others is dangerous territory, but because it’s about sovereignty. We are all sovereign beings, free and self-willed (and so it should be for the animals too). By probing attitudes we’re asking very personal questions of people. Their minds are no terra nullis, they’re individual private property. Exploring and finding out what makes people tick and what their fears are and their motivations and passions – all this is essential for us to discover ways of getting our message across. This is the art of the ‘animal advocate’. But it needs to be done ‘under-cover’ if only to be more effective in helping get animals free and seducing people into a whole better way of life for them selves. We don’t have to be too obvious about being vegan activists. In these early days we need to prepare for the days when people are starting to wonder for themselves. Then we can be there, ready and at their service.
We don’t need to brag about being vegan unless of course our aim is simply to impress our friends or get up their nose.
Unfortunately they’ve inherited an image problem. In public they, as people who take the moral high-ground, are often seen as people-to-be-afraid-of. Vegans have to put up with the tag, the image and the fear. It’s perhaps none of our own making but we have to cop it all the same. For the second-guessed vegan, ‘exploring’ has to be done without getting caught! If we are sprung asking too many questions, we may spoil a whole channel of communication for the future, for others too who’ll come later.
Perhaps being cunning enough not to be sprung, not to be caught, is just a reminder that we should tread respectfully, not so much because exploring others is dangerous territory, but because it’s about sovereignty. We are all sovereign beings, free and self-willed (and so it should be for the animals too). By probing attitudes we’re asking very personal questions of people. Their minds are no terra nullis, they’re individual private property. Exploring and finding out what makes people tick and what their fears are and their motivations and passions – all this is essential for us to discover ways of getting our message across. This is the art of the ‘animal advocate’. But it needs to be done ‘under-cover’ if only to be more effective in helping get animals free and seducing people into a whole better way of life for them selves. We don’t have to be too obvious about being vegan activists. In these early days we need to prepare for the days when people are starting to wonder for themselves. Then we can be there, ready and at their service.
We don’t need to brag about being vegan unless of course our aim is simply to impress our friends or get up their nose.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
An omnivore crisis
A crisis can be a death in the family or a failed exam, anything remembered as ‘crisis-time’. On a subtler level we meet crisis when we’re hit by new information or new understanding. Maybe there’s no blood and no noticeable damage, but something disturbing takes place. We have to respond to it.
Take a simple idea. It suggests something. It makes us feel uncomfortable (or inspired-elated). As an example, it’s like coming face to face with veganism. It has an impact. It creates tension. It may even feel significant. Out of respect for this as a serious idea, it always calls for a reaction.
An omnivore: we meet an idea and that idea might stun us or it might dissipate like water off a duck’s back. If an idea like veganism is mooted it’s likely we shove it in the too-hard basket. We try to forget about it. But if it does sink in and we do react, we sometimes create an initial crisis for ourself. There’s a fight within, as we first take in and then repel the idea. There’s maybe a fight without, about to happen: imagine meeting up with a friend, ending up in ‘dreaded vegan confrontation’. This, to all intents and purposes, can be a social nightmare.
Imagine meeting by chance someone we haven’t seen for many years. We can’t begin to guess how they’d changed since knowing them last (and us for them too). We meet them with a certain curiosity, but if this person’s a vegan, and it comes to light quite quickly, then curiosity goes pear-shaped. Alarm. It can move to dislike or even attack. However shocking ‘vegan’ might sound, it’s impossible to hide that sensation of shock on meeting it. It’s usually so obvious that we can’t hide it (especially from a sensitive vegan, who’s used to this). If we make a hash of things here, saying something the vegan can squash all too easily, we might tip. We might have to defend ourself quite dramatically. We might have to tip over into who-gives-a-damn and say what we really feel.
The vegan (naively or with a secret violent intent) ‘creates’ a situation over tea and biscuits perhaps, and to keep cred all round a ‘reaction’ is called for. But what to make of this vegan ex-friend? The omnivore (meeting a vegan) might, for self-defence reasons, see a stereotypical-vegan in front of them and remember that these types of people have several nasty characteristics.
The omnivore: we might realise this was never going to be a casual encounter … more like a shame-fest. The prediction game moves on rapidly, within microseconds. Here’s a possible attack. Here’s me, victim, taking an ear-blasting about someone else’s ‘issues’. Here’s me, an almost-stranger, subjected to offensive ideas, floating on the safety of old acquaintance, which are being evangelised. Here’s me afraid of a ‘put-down’ … because ‘they’ all hate omnivores.
In a word we have a totally destructive situation all round. From friend to friend there’s a deterioration into not-a-friend but a person you used to know who now gets under people’s skin.
We are standing in front of someone who has a message (maybe with a bible under their arm or they’re wearing a tree-hug t-shirt or they’re vegan) who wants to speak. And we want them NOT to.
Take a simple idea. It suggests something. It makes us feel uncomfortable (or inspired-elated). As an example, it’s like coming face to face with veganism. It has an impact. It creates tension. It may even feel significant. Out of respect for this as a serious idea, it always calls for a reaction.
An omnivore: we meet an idea and that idea might stun us or it might dissipate like water off a duck’s back. If an idea like veganism is mooted it’s likely we shove it in the too-hard basket. We try to forget about it. But if it does sink in and we do react, we sometimes create an initial crisis for ourself. There’s a fight within, as we first take in and then repel the idea. There’s maybe a fight without, about to happen: imagine meeting up with a friend, ending up in ‘dreaded vegan confrontation’. This, to all intents and purposes, can be a social nightmare.
Imagine meeting by chance someone we haven’t seen for many years. We can’t begin to guess how they’d changed since knowing them last (and us for them too). We meet them with a certain curiosity, but if this person’s a vegan, and it comes to light quite quickly, then curiosity goes pear-shaped. Alarm. It can move to dislike or even attack. However shocking ‘vegan’ might sound, it’s impossible to hide that sensation of shock on meeting it. It’s usually so obvious that we can’t hide it (especially from a sensitive vegan, who’s used to this). If we make a hash of things here, saying something the vegan can squash all too easily, we might tip. We might have to defend ourself quite dramatically. We might have to tip over into who-gives-a-damn and say what we really feel.
The vegan (naively or with a secret violent intent) ‘creates’ a situation over tea and biscuits perhaps, and to keep cred all round a ‘reaction’ is called for. But what to make of this vegan ex-friend? The omnivore (meeting a vegan) might, for self-defence reasons, see a stereotypical-vegan in front of them and remember that these types of people have several nasty characteristics.
The omnivore: we might realise this was never going to be a casual encounter … more like a shame-fest. The prediction game moves on rapidly, within microseconds. Here’s a possible attack. Here’s me, victim, taking an ear-blasting about someone else’s ‘issues’. Here’s me, an almost-stranger, subjected to offensive ideas, floating on the safety of old acquaintance, which are being evangelised. Here’s me afraid of a ‘put-down’ … because ‘they’ all hate omnivores.
In a word we have a totally destructive situation all round. From friend to friend there’s a deterioration into not-a-friend but a person you used to know who now gets under people’s skin.
We are standing in front of someone who has a message (maybe with a bible under their arm or they’re wearing a tree-hug t-shirt or they’re vegan) who wants to speak. And we want them NOT to.
Monday, July 19, 2010
The modesty of altruism
Altruism lets us realise that the best things are done on behalf of others. Any benefit accruing to ourselves is incidental. Imagination brings us to the doorstep of this ‘outer world’, nudging us towards the ‘good stuff’ and helped along by self-discipline and self-motivation. So what if we feel held back by ‘frustration’?
We don’t like frustration. We hate being thwarted! But frustration needn’t have such a bad press. With frustration comes tension, and tension means activity, and that stops us seizing up. Is this why we mull over old problems, grind on with the same old thoughts about them, not so much to solve things but to prevent us coming to a dead stop? Frustration stops us giving in or giving up. When we have to exercise the brain on problems we think them through and talk about them to keep the brain working.
But in discussing values we end up damning people who don’t share our own - we make value judgements about them so that we can contrast our own (vegan) compassion or if we’re an omnivore we also show off about other things to emphasise the contrast. And in showing off and denigrating we give rise to consequences – we boast, we look ugly for boasting, we talk idly, we gossip righteously about serious matters, we assassinate the personalities of one or two ‘wrong-doers’. All this moves us so far away from the ideal of modest altruism that we create a certain image for our self, thus adding to the negative image people may already have of people like us, whatever it is that we ‘stand for’.
By developing an attitude of modest altruism we can cut a swathe through any amount of dodgy motives; by avoiding damage-talk we can steer a more direct course towards what we are really trying to establish, namely the ideals, the principles, the food and everything we approve of and try to live by.
We don’t like frustration. We hate being thwarted! But frustration needn’t have such a bad press. With frustration comes tension, and tension means activity, and that stops us seizing up. Is this why we mull over old problems, grind on with the same old thoughts about them, not so much to solve things but to prevent us coming to a dead stop? Frustration stops us giving in or giving up. When we have to exercise the brain on problems we think them through and talk about them to keep the brain working.
But in discussing values we end up damning people who don’t share our own - we make value judgements about them so that we can contrast our own (vegan) compassion or if we’re an omnivore we also show off about other things to emphasise the contrast. And in showing off and denigrating we give rise to consequences – we boast, we look ugly for boasting, we talk idly, we gossip righteously about serious matters, we assassinate the personalities of one or two ‘wrong-doers’. All this moves us so far away from the ideal of modest altruism that we create a certain image for our self, thus adding to the negative image people may already have of people like us, whatever it is that we ‘stand for’.
By developing an attitude of modest altruism we can cut a swathe through any amount of dodgy motives; by avoiding damage-talk we can steer a more direct course towards what we are really trying to establish, namely the ideals, the principles, the food and everything we approve of and try to live by.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Consequences
Imagination offers us two choices – it can be used as a spring board to raise consciousness or we can be knocked down by it.
For some of us imagination is a good friend and yet it’s tantalising. It lures us into seeing things we’d rather NOT see when shown them. Imagination can be our best friend as long as we trust it – it doesn’t promise pie in the sky but if we’re seriously trying to use it to explore life it will show us real possibilities. Imaginative artists work with their muse to paint their masterpieces and so can we all.
Imagination shows us potentials, even glorious potentials … but, there are strings attached.
It’s almost as if there HAS to be an element of frustration to everything we want to do otherwise it would be too “easy come, easy go”. We can’t actually get what we want (even for the very best reasons!) because our ‘wanting’ of it gets in the way. Perhaps most of us aren’t generous enough to take on problems that seem to be largely of other people’s making. We say (like a child would say) “It’s not fair”. We don’t see this is a problem-sharing-world let alone a taking-responsibility-world. But by living in this world and not stopping, not repairing what is going on we suffer the inevitable consequences.
For some of us imagination is a good friend and yet it’s tantalising. It lures us into seeing things we’d rather NOT see when shown them. Imagination can be our best friend as long as we trust it – it doesn’t promise pie in the sky but if we’re seriously trying to use it to explore life it will show us real possibilities. Imaginative artists work with their muse to paint their masterpieces and so can we all.
Imagination shows us potentials, even glorious potentials … but, there are strings attached.
It’s almost as if there HAS to be an element of frustration to everything we want to do otherwise it would be too “easy come, easy go”. We can’t actually get what we want (even for the very best reasons!) because our ‘wanting’ of it gets in the way. Perhaps most of us aren’t generous enough to take on problems that seem to be largely of other people’s making. We say (like a child would say) “It’s not fair”. We don’t see this is a problem-sharing-world let alone a taking-responsibility-world. But by living in this world and not stopping, not repairing what is going on we suffer the inevitable consequences.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The driving consideration
You’re invading my ‘personal space’.
I push you aside. But if you’re nice I might draw you in.
I might need your admiration.
Look at my achievements,
Don’t look at the consequences which weren’t intended.
Look at me in my ‘me-centred’ action.
Animal Rights. Genuine. Caring.
Or ‘me’ needing-to-achieve?
Look at me in the delicate china shop
Smashing recklessly. I’m showing off
No thought to the consequences.
Look at us all, vegans and non-vegans,
Held back by fear of the soft side.
‘Humanity’ hasn’t been our driving consideration.
Or put another way:
What is our driving consideration? Is it that our quest for achievement brings us face to face, down the track, with consequences. We charge through the proverbial ‘china shop’ to show how much ‘forward-drive’ we’ve got, with no-thought-to-the-consequences. It’s just another ‘me-centred’ thing we do.
Animal Rights is a deep and genuine concern for most vegan activists. It’s also about our needing-to-achieve, so it isn’t all selfless. Amongst vegans and non-vegans alike, ‘humanity’ is often not the driving consideration. It may be a personal power thing or a social respect thing and our softer side often gets pushed into the background.
I push you aside. But if you’re nice I might draw you in.
I might need your admiration.
Look at my achievements,
Don’t look at the consequences which weren’t intended.
Look at me in my ‘me-centred’ action.
Animal Rights. Genuine. Caring.
Or ‘me’ needing-to-achieve?
Look at me in the delicate china shop
Smashing recklessly. I’m showing off
No thought to the consequences.
Look at us all, vegans and non-vegans,
Held back by fear of the soft side.
‘Humanity’ hasn’t been our driving consideration.
Or put another way:
What is our driving consideration? Is it that our quest for achievement brings us face to face, down the track, with consequences. We charge through the proverbial ‘china shop’ to show how much ‘forward-drive’ we’ve got, with no-thought-to-the-consequences. It’s just another ‘me-centred’ thing we do.
Animal Rights is a deep and genuine concern for most vegan activists. It’s also about our needing-to-achieve, so it isn’t all selfless. Amongst vegans and non-vegans alike, ‘humanity’ is often not the driving consideration. It may be a personal power thing or a social respect thing and our softer side often gets pushed into the background.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The people-bullies
Behind their closed doors they do their business - if the Animal Industries weren’t bullying animals they’d have no other way of making a living, or so they think. So they live off the backs of animals and find new ways to shield their customers from knowing what they’re doing.
The upshot of all this is that most people know the consequences of eating animal products but with the help of sanitised information are encouraged not to think about it. Maybe most thinking people do harbour guilts, regrets and ‘hardenings’ but repress it all until it surfaces, usually later in life. When the consequences show up they come as a surprise – they creep up from behind and when we eventually see them it’s often too late to fix things, Unless we drop the “what is done is done” attitude we’ll never find a way of making up for the harm we’ve each done. The sooner we can drop the damaging products and start eating plant-based foods the better.
The upshot of all this is that most people know the consequences of eating animal products but with the help of sanitised information are encouraged not to think about it. Maybe most thinking people do harbour guilts, regrets and ‘hardenings’ but repress it all until it surfaces, usually later in life. When the consequences show up they come as a surprise – they creep up from behind and when we eventually see them it’s often too late to fix things, Unless we drop the “what is done is done” attitude we’ll never find a way of making up for the harm we’ve each done. The sooner we can drop the damaging products and start eating plant-based foods the better.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The boycott
For presently-practising-omnivores there are powerful cords tugging at the taste buds, later tugging at the gut, later tugging at the conscience. The products omnivores won’t give up are the flesh and juice of animal’s bodies. Nobody needs reminding of the fact that omnivores use their money to support the people who extract this stuff, The Animal Industry. It, in turn, seeks out ways of hiding from its customers certain facts about animal life (down on the farm or down at the abattoir). They make the taste bud treats (and stomach fillers) and the customers show their appreciation by paying for them.
The Animal Industry shields the customer from ‘the consequences’ (of buying their products) and makes addictive enough to keep customer loyalty. Vegans, who’ve completely forgotten how addictive these products are, struggle to understand the gullibility of people who keep buying this stuff. But we can say nothing directly, otherwise everyone will think we’ve flipped. So, the trick is for vegans to find ways to say what we have to say but in a simple and non-judgemental way, to persuade people to join us in a boycott.
The Animal Industry shields the customer from ‘the consequences’ (of buying their products) and makes addictive enough to keep customer loyalty. Vegans, who’ve completely forgotten how addictive these products are, struggle to understand the gullibility of people who keep buying this stuff. But we can say nothing directly, otherwise everyone will think we’ve flipped. So, the trick is for vegans to find ways to say what we have to say but in a simple and non-judgemental way, to persuade people to join us in a boycott.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Turning away
If people are refusing to look at the question of animal exploitation, maybe it’s because they like their ‘food’ too much. How does that make vegans feel? Usually it’s quite depressing but so what? We, all of us, vegans included, are refusing to face certain smelly bits about our lives … some being more important than others, but so what? We all face-down to some things so we can face-up to others.
In the most absurd case we have a person who says “I won’t go vegan. I already support charities”, making it look as though being vegan is like doing charity work. It looks as though we are the type of people who like being nice to animals. Maybe people think our rationale (for ‘being vegan’) is to earn brownie points by suffering a bit of deprivation. Maybe our being vegan makes us feel less guilty.
Some of this is true, some so wide of the mark that if people do think this way they need to be disabused of it. When it comes to ‘veganism’ most people don’t have the remotest idea what it stands for. All they know is that it involves eating lots of vegetables. They often joke about it - that vegans eat beans, fart a lot and get over-serious about issues (undefined).
Now – this is when perhaps people see vegans this way. Our job is surely to continuously throw up the challenge. Say “all this is about to change”. About to? … I mean once just a few more people join the boycott.
If omnivores aren’t completely stupid then they’re cunning: they may know about vegan and may have worked out private ways to get around the problem. All fairly private - and that’s why they do so hate it when vegans challenge them to a verbal duel. So horrible a prospect is it, for omnivores to contemplate being made to look stupid or brutal, that they’ll avoid this sort of conversation like the plague.
They will, drop of the hat, try to convince anyone about that the nasty vegan is being aggressive. This brings down a tonne of disapproval far outweighing the personality-fault the vegan seems to be alluding to (and this is why we shouldn’t give them any excuse to point the finger). If we can disprove this, that we are NOT aggressive, then I reckon we’re home and hosed.
But before that happens we need to see who omnivores are. We need to realise that for the average omnivore it’s always a case of what we see is what it means: what we don’t see can’t mean anything at all.
For your average omnivore the blind-eye hasn’t opened and the mind-jump hasn’t yet happened – they haven’t considered sentience – or if they have it comes up saying “animals” and they panic about foods they love from ‘food-animals’ and retreat backwards at the rate of knots. The classic no-go zone is right there. A classic taboo. Even before any ‘dangerous thoughts’ have had time to germinate a fatwa is declared on all notions dealing with sentience. It’s refused entry. In the citadel which is ‘me’, all the go-zones and no-go zones are distinctly marked.
Are we happy about that? And are we happy about the bits of our own personality we don’t like? I bet every one of us has a shopping list of these traits. And so if we do have things we’re not proud of, then what are they and how do we fix them?
What things are meaningful? Surely, that is the question. Why carry round a nasty smell all your life?
In the most absurd case we have a person who says “I won’t go vegan. I already support charities”, making it look as though being vegan is like doing charity work. It looks as though we are the type of people who like being nice to animals. Maybe people think our rationale (for ‘being vegan’) is to earn brownie points by suffering a bit of deprivation. Maybe our being vegan makes us feel less guilty.
Some of this is true, some so wide of the mark that if people do think this way they need to be disabused of it. When it comes to ‘veganism’ most people don’t have the remotest idea what it stands for. All they know is that it involves eating lots of vegetables. They often joke about it - that vegans eat beans, fart a lot and get over-serious about issues (undefined).
Now – this is when perhaps people see vegans this way. Our job is surely to continuously throw up the challenge. Say “all this is about to change”. About to? … I mean once just a few more people join the boycott.
If omnivores aren’t completely stupid then they’re cunning: they may know about vegan and may have worked out private ways to get around the problem. All fairly private - and that’s why they do so hate it when vegans challenge them to a verbal duel. So horrible a prospect is it, for omnivores to contemplate being made to look stupid or brutal, that they’ll avoid this sort of conversation like the plague.
They will, drop of the hat, try to convince anyone about that the nasty vegan is being aggressive. This brings down a tonne of disapproval far outweighing the personality-fault the vegan seems to be alluding to (and this is why we shouldn’t give them any excuse to point the finger). If we can disprove this, that we are NOT aggressive, then I reckon we’re home and hosed.
But before that happens we need to see who omnivores are. We need to realise that for the average omnivore it’s always a case of what we see is what it means: what we don’t see can’t mean anything at all.
For your average omnivore the blind-eye hasn’t opened and the mind-jump hasn’t yet happened – they haven’t considered sentience – or if they have it comes up saying “animals” and they panic about foods they love from ‘food-animals’ and retreat backwards at the rate of knots. The classic no-go zone is right there. A classic taboo. Even before any ‘dangerous thoughts’ have had time to germinate a fatwa is declared on all notions dealing with sentience. It’s refused entry. In the citadel which is ‘me’, all the go-zones and no-go zones are distinctly marked.
Are we happy about that? And are we happy about the bits of our own personality we don’t like? I bet every one of us has a shopping list of these traits. And so if we do have things we’re not proud of, then what are they and how do we fix them?
What things are meaningful? Surely, that is the question. Why carry round a nasty smell all your life?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The biggest heist in history
The Animal Industry, which includes anyone benefiting financially from animal products, comprises huge numbers of people, each interdependent, in every country on Earth. Add to their number the customers (who ‘benefit’ from their products) and you have a combined total that makes up just about everybody. Each has a vested interest in the animal industry. Vegans are the only ones NOT to have.
For vegans to attempt to draw large numbers of people away from that ‘interest’, towards a whole other way of seeing and doing things, might seem like a daring heist indeed. Some would say an impossible task. And yet with some sort of instinctive nose for the future, this is precisely what today’s vegans are attempting to pull off. Namely the biggest heist in history.
There are certain indications that it might just work. We don’t have to be secret, we don’t have to be illegal and the whole heist can be very up-front. But it depends on vegans working steadily in the same direction and for us to use our most creative imaginations.
We do know a few things about the changes to come – they will be thorough. The animal advocate is not only aiming to change people’s eating habits but introduce them to a world of ‘facing-up & dealing-with’. The essential nature of change is so obvious it hardly needs explaining – the horror of what’s going on, the health implication to humans and the amount of waste brought about by today’s lifestyle habits. It’s something we must all, at some stage, have to confront. Vegans simply have to turn on a couple of taps and the water will flow of its own accord. The heist will have taken place before people have even noticed anything has changed about them.
For vegans to attempt to draw large numbers of people away from that ‘interest’, towards a whole other way of seeing and doing things, might seem like a daring heist indeed. Some would say an impossible task. And yet with some sort of instinctive nose for the future, this is precisely what today’s vegans are attempting to pull off. Namely the biggest heist in history.
There are certain indications that it might just work. We don’t have to be secret, we don’t have to be illegal and the whole heist can be very up-front. But it depends on vegans working steadily in the same direction and for us to use our most creative imaginations.
We do know a few things about the changes to come – they will be thorough. The animal advocate is not only aiming to change people’s eating habits but introduce them to a world of ‘facing-up & dealing-with’. The essential nature of change is so obvious it hardly needs explaining – the horror of what’s going on, the health implication to humans and the amount of waste brought about by today’s lifestyle habits. It’s something we must all, at some stage, have to confront. Vegans simply have to turn on a couple of taps and the water will flow of its own accord. The heist will have taken place before people have even noticed anything has changed about them.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Consequences
‘That which we haven’t got but want’ could be okay were it not for the fact that we’re careless in not considering negative ‘consequences’ - we’re either unconcerned or unaware that we might be the cause of someone else’s dismay.
When we do question consequences, as we do most times before acting, we weigh decisions with care. But when we don’t we pay dearly. We have no protection. The consequences spring out of nowhere. We are shocked. (This, incidentally, is the same shock you see on people’s faces when you first explain what ‘vegan’ means - they suddenly have to face some of the consequences of their own actions).
When we don’t question consequences we soon enough don’t even see them. Then the blind eye kicks in – it’s the miracle of taboo where whole societies can perform rituals without considering consequences. For example, take the meat-eating ritual, the eat-what-you-feel-like ritual. When we eat meat it’s likely we don’t, even for one moment, consider the animals we’re eating. The ‘ritual’ helps us ignore ‘the consequences of our actions’, even when they’re staring us in the face. That ability to switch off is a true feat of mental gymnastics, compounded by our ability to then turn-on some ‘hostility’ when a ‘certain subject’ is mentioned (that’s the taboo bit). When we accept, defend or even worship this particular taboo we are joined by almost everyone we know. It acts as an effective defence from the attacks of angry vegans who might be passing by.
If we are confronted, if we’re forced to confront ‘this’, this is when we might feel as if we’ve just stepped on a dog turd, when we’re put into a state of shock by a mere piece of information. Perhaps it’s guilt we feel or perhaps embarrassment, when we realise we’ve been spectacularly manipulated by the animal industries. This industry has done such a swifty on us that they’ve got us into the very act of not-thinking. They’ve anaesthetised our ‘receptors’.
“What cruelty?”
When we do question consequences, as we do most times before acting, we weigh decisions with care. But when we don’t we pay dearly. We have no protection. The consequences spring out of nowhere. We are shocked. (This, incidentally, is the same shock you see on people’s faces when you first explain what ‘vegan’ means - they suddenly have to face some of the consequences of their own actions).
When we don’t question consequences we soon enough don’t even see them. Then the blind eye kicks in – it’s the miracle of taboo where whole societies can perform rituals without considering consequences. For example, take the meat-eating ritual, the eat-what-you-feel-like ritual. When we eat meat it’s likely we don’t, even for one moment, consider the animals we’re eating. The ‘ritual’ helps us ignore ‘the consequences of our actions’, even when they’re staring us in the face. That ability to switch off is a true feat of mental gymnastics, compounded by our ability to then turn-on some ‘hostility’ when a ‘certain subject’ is mentioned (that’s the taboo bit). When we accept, defend or even worship this particular taboo we are joined by almost everyone we know. It acts as an effective defence from the attacks of angry vegans who might be passing by.
If we are confronted, if we’re forced to confront ‘this’, this is when we might feel as if we’ve just stepped on a dog turd, when we’re put into a state of shock by a mere piece of information. Perhaps it’s guilt we feel or perhaps embarrassment, when we realise we’ve been spectacularly manipulated by the animal industries. This industry has done such a swifty on us that they’ve got us into the very act of not-thinking. They’ve anaesthetised our ‘receptors’.
“What cruelty?”
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Achievement
There are promising signs for humans. In so many ways this ‘humanity-making’ process is already happening - it’s an impulse to go ‘green’, and on a deeper level it could be a greening of our very consciousness. Maybe the impulse to hug a tree is not just ‘feely-feely’ but simply a sensitisation-of-thinking. It’s a willingness to bring imagination into the equation (imagine a tree feeling me hugging it!). It’s where we contemplate positive thoughts, albeit simple, like what we’re cooking for dinner tonight.
But negatively it’s also where we bring in the ‘fear element’ into our imagination - clouds with which to cloud ourselves; it’s where we swim through treacle, where achievement is linked with pain and incidentally where we’re most scruffy. Negative imagination causes us to strain too hard with self-expectation, only to end up missing the point entirely. When we don’t come from fear we’re more likely to achieve, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Achievement itself is seductive in as much as we all prostitute our selves for it. (I won’t go there!) But in the struggle for achievement, even if we don’t sell our soul then often we opt for second best (that’s the scruffy bit!) Nobody knows why we try to short cut things, but on repetition of this bizarre behaviour habits form and we settle for material satisfactions rather than the ‘real thing’. There’s no chance of building contentment here! Isn’t this where we are drawn into the bosom of materiality … into “wanting what we haven’t got”?
But negatively it’s also where we bring in the ‘fear element’ into our imagination - clouds with which to cloud ourselves; it’s where we swim through treacle, where achievement is linked with pain and incidentally where we’re most scruffy. Negative imagination causes us to strain too hard with self-expectation, only to end up missing the point entirely. When we don’t come from fear we’re more likely to achieve, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Achievement itself is seductive in as much as we all prostitute our selves for it. (I won’t go there!) But in the struggle for achievement, even if we don’t sell our soul then often we opt for second best (that’s the scruffy bit!) Nobody knows why we try to short cut things, but on repetition of this bizarre behaviour habits form and we settle for material satisfactions rather than the ‘real thing’. There’s no chance of building contentment here! Isn’t this where we are drawn into the bosom of materiality … into “wanting what we haven’t got”?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Humanity
It’s a delicious idea, humanity. It’s within all of us. Our ‘soul’ is its oracle, its ‘speaker’ and manufacturer. We either listen to our ‘soul-talk’ or we don’t, depending on the circumstances. If we engage the ‘soul’ we feel a glow inside … but maybe get overwhelmed. It’s as if we can only feel it as an abstract, as a potential we might not yet be experiencing. Our actions don’t reflect it because they’re driven by fear and the need for personal achievement. This ‘soul’-driven potential, we say, is “too idealistic”. We don’t take it seriously.
For some of us the implications of a humane world are too powerful to behold, and yet … it’s both frightening and dazzling.
If ‘humanity’ is the very essence of human life and if this is our ‘special gift’ to the planet (don’t laugh!!), then why don’t we think-humane. Perhaps we don’t because we know humanity comes with strings attached. The downside of any altruistic (humane) act is that it can be depressing - no rewards and not even any affirmation of what we’ve done.
When we DO something that’s really good there’s often a feeling that we’ve ‘set ourselves up’. We’ve made a rod for our own back. We expect things of ourselves. And if we’re silly enough to boast about it, then we also have to cop others’ expectations of us. Usually the only applause we get is from our most loyal friend, our ‘soul’.
Now Soul has impeccable manners. It defers. It stays in the background. It waits until it is wanted. For any transmigrating entity there isn’t a need to hurry. Maybe in the same way there isn’t any hurry, one dangerously suggests, in our cause? Urgent yes, but a fine line between urging immediate attention and moving hastily.
So far, from our most primitive developments right up to now, as humans’ souls have had a poor showing. (Imagine what the animal killers would say to that!). There’s something about humanity we daren’t face up to. It’s like one of those over-keen traders in the markets of Cairo, whose eye one hardly dares to catch for fear they’ll leap on you and not let you go on without buying something from them. We might not want to catch the eye of the ‘soul’, for fear of it wanting to speak to us, and stretch our imagination to hurting point.
For some of us the implications of a humane world are too powerful to behold, and yet … it’s both frightening and dazzling.
If ‘humanity’ is the very essence of human life and if this is our ‘special gift’ to the planet (don’t laugh!!), then why don’t we think-humane. Perhaps we don’t because we know humanity comes with strings attached. The downside of any altruistic (humane) act is that it can be depressing - no rewards and not even any affirmation of what we’ve done.
When we DO something that’s really good there’s often a feeling that we’ve ‘set ourselves up’. We’ve made a rod for our own back. We expect things of ourselves. And if we’re silly enough to boast about it, then we also have to cop others’ expectations of us. Usually the only applause we get is from our most loyal friend, our ‘soul’.
Now Soul has impeccable manners. It defers. It stays in the background. It waits until it is wanted. For any transmigrating entity there isn’t a need to hurry. Maybe in the same way there isn’t any hurry, one dangerously suggests, in our cause? Urgent yes, but a fine line between urging immediate attention and moving hastily.
So far, from our most primitive developments right up to now, as humans’ souls have had a poor showing. (Imagine what the animal killers would say to that!). There’s something about humanity we daren’t face up to. It’s like one of those over-keen traders in the markets of Cairo, whose eye one hardly dares to catch for fear they’ll leap on you and not let you go on without buying something from them. We might not want to catch the eye of the ‘soul’, for fear of it wanting to speak to us, and stretch our imagination to hurting point.
Friday, July 9, 2010
“Oh, the humanity”
Self development is a wonderful thing when it involves consciousness-raising. It means we’re becoming more deeply aware of our surroundings. As we go through each developmental stage we can feel ourselves growing up. Predominantly it’s the ‘humanity’ we feel and that’s where the real hope lies for humans. We refer to ourselves, rather hypocritically, as ‘humanity’. When the Hindenburg airship burst into flames in 1937 the news commentator famously said what everyone was feeling, “Oh, the humanity”. It was as if on the in-breath people were shocked and on the out-breath expressed compassion for the loss of so much ‘humanity’. People understood what he meant, as if we were human embodiments of ‘humanity’.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Animal Rights
This is a subject (closely involving our food) which is dear to everyone’s heart and yet it’s also a very private subject; it’s tabooed for very good reason. Unlike any other subject (eg. environmental concerns) this one, specifically concerning food made from animals, deals with a daily used consumer item. This is therefore an issue that every person on the planet is involved with. Almost everyone eats animal-based foods. The taboo prevents casual discussion to take place; it keeps it locked away in the ‘unquestioned’ basket.
So, in a nutshell, as advocates-for-animals, our approach through the undergrowth of taboo is as critical as the quality of information we give out. We’re opening up a reluctant subject for inspection. We’re performing a particular surgery here. If we do it well we can both unblock an omnivore’s long-held attitude and further our own personal development as activists.
So, in a nutshell, as advocates-for-animals, our approach through the undergrowth of taboo is as critical as the quality of information we give out. We’re opening up a reluctant subject for inspection. We’re performing a particular surgery here. If we do it well we can both unblock an omnivore’s long-held attitude and further our own personal development as activists.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
"You are inferior"
If I think your views are inferior to mine and if I try to tell you you’re wrong, your hackles rise, maybe mostly because it feels like a criticism of you as a person. If I believe I’m right and you’re wrong it seems like I’m saying I think I’m brighter than you. In a discussion when I win the point I also lose the point, because no true overall advancement has taken place. All we have is a satisfied feeling that we ‘got that one across’ strongly, that we’ve proved our point.
Confrontation and emotionally charged one-upmanship gets us nowhere as communicators. All the time we can see a tight lipped intention not to change we are not making the connections we need for a fair-minded exchange of views.
Perhaps there’s something the righteous have in common, when talking on their favourite subject, that makes people dig their heels in. If that ‘better-than-you’ is absent then even the most outrageous disagreements can seem like fun, and can in a zany way seem quite constructive, as if our jewels might be good for “take-out”.
What we as ‘the communicator’ shouldn’t do is betray our own stand, by seeming to go along with views we don’t hold ourself in order to keep the peace. If we do that we’re going nowhere.
On some level, for vegans, there must be an acceptance of the omnivore. (For heaven’s sake, MOST if not ALL of the people we know ARE omnivores!) There are so many of them! We need to accept them and be pro-active in showing that – that’s if we want to have any chance at all of touching their hearts. It won’t work the other way round, by attack and confrontation. We’ve got to work out how to ‘dialogue’ with people, even when they disagree with us vehemently. This vexed question of whether our subject is regarded by others as ‘important’ - animal food and animal cruelty – is the foundation for all dialogue we have on this subject.
If this subject were talked about as freely as, say, environmental matters we’d be less frantic. Food and animal food and therefore animal husbandry touch a raw nerve like no other subject. For us this makes it that much more difficult to talk about than, say, an environmentalist talking environment. First up then, vegans need to ease up on the attack mode and relax into the role of ‘information-imparter’. But of course it isn’t that easy.
Confrontation and emotionally charged one-upmanship gets us nowhere as communicators. All the time we can see a tight lipped intention not to change we are not making the connections we need for a fair-minded exchange of views.
Perhaps there’s something the righteous have in common, when talking on their favourite subject, that makes people dig their heels in. If that ‘better-than-you’ is absent then even the most outrageous disagreements can seem like fun, and can in a zany way seem quite constructive, as if our jewels might be good for “take-out”.
What we as ‘the communicator’ shouldn’t do is betray our own stand, by seeming to go along with views we don’t hold ourself in order to keep the peace. If we do that we’re going nowhere.
On some level, for vegans, there must be an acceptance of the omnivore. (For heaven’s sake, MOST if not ALL of the people we know ARE omnivores!) There are so many of them! We need to accept them and be pro-active in showing that – that’s if we want to have any chance at all of touching their hearts. It won’t work the other way round, by attack and confrontation. We’ve got to work out how to ‘dialogue’ with people, even when they disagree with us vehemently. This vexed question of whether our subject is regarded by others as ‘important’ - animal food and animal cruelty – is the foundation for all dialogue we have on this subject.
If this subject were talked about as freely as, say, environmental matters we’d be less frantic. Food and animal food and therefore animal husbandry touch a raw nerve like no other subject. For us this makes it that much more difficult to talk about than, say, an environmentalist talking environment. First up then, vegans need to ease up on the attack mode and relax into the role of ‘information-imparter’. But of course it isn’t that easy.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Feeding information
Information is the currency of the future. Animal Rights information should be like ‘vegan take out’ - something the customer leaves with, to take home, to chew over. A food vendor’s smile is good for custom so it’s the same with vegans who smile, or rather who insist on affectionate interchanges. However, let it be said, this is not yummy food we’re selling, it is more like at-first-difficult-to-digest ideas. To pass these juicy morsels over the counter we need to make them seem safe. In other words we need to cultivate affection in order to make people feel at ease, unafraid, connected, and willing to go exploring with us.
Communication starts when the most in-discernable connections are made, and made in spite of any flying sparks. There’s likely to be heated views which are firmly felt. You may love your meat, your diet, your treats and I may be firmly against all of that. To come together, especially if the vegan is initiating the discussion, our smile, voice-tone and body language need to be unaffected by the force of opposition. We remain calm. Throughout everything we talk about, our affection for the person we’re talking to should be a constant. Our information may be hard to handle but our approach should be casual. It spells safety. It’s only when something is raised casually enough to indicate safety that it can become interesting enough for the other person to risk engaging with us.
Communication starts when the most in-discernable connections are made, and made in spite of any flying sparks. There’s likely to be heated views which are firmly felt. You may love your meat, your diet, your treats and I may be firmly against all of that. To come together, especially if the vegan is initiating the discussion, our smile, voice-tone and body language need to be unaffected by the force of opposition. We remain calm. Throughout everything we talk about, our affection for the person we’re talking to should be a constant. Our information may be hard to handle but our approach should be casual. It spells safety. It’s only when something is raised casually enough to indicate safety that it can become interesting enough for the other person to risk engaging with us.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Affection is an approach
If an omnivore is willing to accept the idea of animals having rights it implies they’re no longer willing to accept the old idea, that they can be exploited for human use. That’s one of the biggest decisions one could make in one’s lifetime. That’s why it could be critical, when talking animal rights to strangers; we don’t get their backs up unnecessarily. We never know how close they are to accepting our premise … so it’s better to be safe than sorry. Affection is a great little safety measure. But let’s not get carried away – this is such a sensitive area. We need to think about ‘how we deliver’ so we show respect for the intelligence of the listener. Then w can expect some respect back.
If vegans don’t respect omnivores there’s no way they will listen to us; figuratively speaking, we’ll never get our toe in the door. Emotionally they have to be on-side if we want our ‘message’ to sell.
If vegans don’t respect omnivores there’s no way they will listen to us; figuratively speaking, we’ll never get our toe in the door. Emotionally they have to be on-side if we want our ‘message’ to sell.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Wanting to talk
Sunday 4th July, it being American Independence Day I’m asserting my own independence today to say something … I’m sorry it’s a ‘thousand-worder’. I “want to talk”!!
We should rub along together, and insist on it. The potential of our “omnivore - vegan interface” lies in talking together, understanding where each is coming from. Probably, for the omnivore, they haven’t thought much about ‘animal issues’ before, and for the vegan it’s likely we’ve forgotten how we came to ‘it all’ in the first place. What were our triggers at the time? What are people’s triggers now?
When talking’s happening we’re alive! Perhaps out of the blue the ‘subject’ comes up. The issues spring out ‘loudly’. Sometimes you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. Vegans are familiar with this. They’re used to seeing the resistance-shutters coming down. And so quickly too, especially if you’re already known to be ‘a vegan’. It’s weird, suddenly the spotlight falls on us. “Speak”. So the big question is, at that precise moment, how do we pitch what we have to say?
‘They’ may genuinely want to find out certain things, but hoping not to cop a lecture. What a vegan might want to say is less that they’ll be allowed to say. For us it’s a case of guessing how genuine the interest is and why they’d be commenting or questioning. It’s intended to evoke a response from ‘the vegan’. In all of this interplay, if we’re given the go-ahead to speak we need to know we have the right also NOT to comment. To drop it where we sense a violent element wanting to find a reason to cut our throat. Less extreme was the time I was talking on a crate at Hyde Park Corner, giving a talk and answering question about the kangaroo situation in Australia, and I was heckled so badly by one person who made so much noise that I couldn’t be heard. In such situations it’s important for animal advocates to question “why am I having this conversation in the first place?”
Apart from that personal safety issue there are other ‘safety’ issues to consider. Our own violence may be far too dangerous to show. If we’re advocates for animals just to get the chance to knock other people’s views on the head that’s one type of activist, but there is quite another: those vegans who genuinely want to assist … to help bring the general consciousness on a bit.
For genuinely non-violent advocates for animals who wish to communicate on this subject, the trick I think is to focus on helping (I hope that doesn’t sound too corny!) Our intervention into other people’s understanding is by their permission only. Otherwise whatever we say is definitely going to “put them off”, and if not put-off the core ideas then turned off by the spruiker of them.
Omnivores have certain rights, but they are also (expletive-deleted) maddening. Most of us would be familiar with these tricky conversations with omnivores, on important matters. We’ve seen the ducking and weaving that goes on. It’s horrible to behold and so, perhaps this is where we should show our first act of kindness, in pretending not to have noticed! Seriously, we aren’t talking animal rights in order to make fools out of people.
Talk can be inspiring - if we can get damp tinder glowing we may get a fire. The conversation may roar like a fire up the chimney, and yet all through we must know we will leave as good friends. At other times it doesn’t work. It turns into a bun fight over who is MOST RIGHT.
When we do get talking with non-vegans we, and not usually they, know how fundamental this subject is. Others, because they don’t know (or maybe don’t want to know), try to treat it frivolously. We do have a position we hold – that this is a serious subject. It can’t possibly be regarded as a frivolous subject. Nor is this subject one of those nice dinner table conversation pieces, which we can “just agree to disagree about”. Well, yes we can … anyone has the right to ‘leave it at that’ if they want to – there’s no law that says you HAVE to listen. So, assuming we are all volunteers-in-conversation, ask yourself this, why would an omnivore want to bring the subject up, and then be prepared to go on with it?
Maybe it just happens. But I suspect that it often happens and suddenly a great chasm appears in front of our feet and in the heat of the moment we forget who we are, we think the feelings of the other person don’t matter, and whoops, we did a ‘wobbly’ on them.
They felt it. You could see that. And they saw you see it … and so a heated conversation starts off on a poor footing. But there are other sorts of conversations. Calmer ones. And it’s these which allow both sides to perform their act and at the same time put on a little show of respect towards each other.
If we get a question about veganism we can expect it to be asked out of a genuine respect for our principles. But why is a question asked in the first place? Maybe the other person is ‘showing an interest’ but not necessarily asking out of a ‘fascination to know’. It could be a show of manners. Maybe our friend wants to learn a few things from us. But motives can be quite different and since, half the time, we don’t know who we’re talking to (and on this oh-so-sensitive matter) we can never be quite sure until after our first words are out, at what level we should be pitching to them. They may have their own agenda, anything from having a quick dig at us to an intention to bring on a full scale moral punch-up. The question again: Why would an omnivore want to discuss ‘veganism’ with a vegan?
That is such a central question for vegans that when we get clear about that we’ll have it in the bag. But that’s another matter. For the time being I’d like to get inside the vegan head and think out loud. Why am I wanting to talk?
From a vegan’s point of view it may be decision time: which way to go for the best sales ‘pitch’. I’d like to suggest that it’s not quite a case of: “I mustn’t offend my friend therefore I must soften my position”, it’s more “I must make it attractive, a gift, a service I’m wanting to perform”. Can I “affectionately deliver the argument, show good intention as well as emphasise the self-benefit of it all. Vegans need to talk, they need to be patient enough to wait for the invitation to talk. But at the end of the “day” we have to be able to say to the other person, “Take it or (if you’d prefer) leave it”. You can lead a horse to water …
We should rub along together, and insist on it. The potential of our “omnivore - vegan interface” lies in talking together, understanding where each is coming from. Probably, for the omnivore, they haven’t thought much about ‘animal issues’ before, and for the vegan it’s likely we’ve forgotten how we came to ‘it all’ in the first place. What were our triggers at the time? What are people’s triggers now?
When talking’s happening we’re alive! Perhaps out of the blue the ‘subject’ comes up. The issues spring out ‘loudly’. Sometimes you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. Vegans are familiar with this. They’re used to seeing the resistance-shutters coming down. And so quickly too, especially if you’re already known to be ‘a vegan’. It’s weird, suddenly the spotlight falls on us. “Speak”. So the big question is, at that precise moment, how do we pitch what we have to say?
‘They’ may genuinely want to find out certain things, but hoping not to cop a lecture. What a vegan might want to say is less that they’ll be allowed to say. For us it’s a case of guessing how genuine the interest is and why they’d be commenting or questioning. It’s intended to evoke a response from ‘the vegan’. In all of this interplay, if we’re given the go-ahead to speak we need to know we have the right also NOT to comment. To drop it where we sense a violent element wanting to find a reason to cut our throat. Less extreme was the time I was talking on a crate at Hyde Park Corner, giving a talk and answering question about the kangaroo situation in Australia, and I was heckled so badly by one person who made so much noise that I couldn’t be heard. In such situations it’s important for animal advocates to question “why am I having this conversation in the first place?”
Apart from that personal safety issue there are other ‘safety’ issues to consider. Our own violence may be far too dangerous to show. If we’re advocates for animals just to get the chance to knock other people’s views on the head that’s one type of activist, but there is quite another: those vegans who genuinely want to assist … to help bring the general consciousness on a bit.
For genuinely non-violent advocates for animals who wish to communicate on this subject, the trick I think is to focus on helping (I hope that doesn’t sound too corny!) Our intervention into other people’s understanding is by their permission only. Otherwise whatever we say is definitely going to “put them off”, and if not put-off the core ideas then turned off by the spruiker of them.
Omnivores have certain rights, but they are also (expletive-deleted) maddening. Most of us would be familiar with these tricky conversations with omnivores, on important matters. We’ve seen the ducking and weaving that goes on. It’s horrible to behold and so, perhaps this is where we should show our first act of kindness, in pretending not to have noticed! Seriously, we aren’t talking animal rights in order to make fools out of people.
Talk can be inspiring - if we can get damp tinder glowing we may get a fire. The conversation may roar like a fire up the chimney, and yet all through we must know we will leave as good friends. At other times it doesn’t work. It turns into a bun fight over who is MOST RIGHT.
When we do get talking with non-vegans we, and not usually they, know how fundamental this subject is. Others, because they don’t know (or maybe don’t want to know), try to treat it frivolously. We do have a position we hold – that this is a serious subject. It can’t possibly be regarded as a frivolous subject. Nor is this subject one of those nice dinner table conversation pieces, which we can “just agree to disagree about”. Well, yes we can … anyone has the right to ‘leave it at that’ if they want to – there’s no law that says you HAVE to listen. So, assuming we are all volunteers-in-conversation, ask yourself this, why would an omnivore want to bring the subject up, and then be prepared to go on with it?
Maybe it just happens. But I suspect that it often happens and suddenly a great chasm appears in front of our feet and in the heat of the moment we forget who we are, we think the feelings of the other person don’t matter, and whoops, we did a ‘wobbly’ on them.
They felt it. You could see that. And they saw you see it … and so a heated conversation starts off on a poor footing. But there are other sorts of conversations. Calmer ones. And it’s these which allow both sides to perform their act and at the same time put on a little show of respect towards each other.
If we get a question about veganism we can expect it to be asked out of a genuine respect for our principles. But why is a question asked in the first place? Maybe the other person is ‘showing an interest’ but not necessarily asking out of a ‘fascination to know’. It could be a show of manners. Maybe our friend wants to learn a few things from us. But motives can be quite different and since, half the time, we don’t know who we’re talking to (and on this oh-so-sensitive matter) we can never be quite sure until after our first words are out, at what level we should be pitching to them. They may have their own agenda, anything from having a quick dig at us to an intention to bring on a full scale moral punch-up. The question again: Why would an omnivore want to discuss ‘veganism’ with a vegan?
That is such a central question for vegans that when we get clear about that we’ll have it in the bag. But that’s another matter. For the time being I’d like to get inside the vegan head and think out loud. Why am I wanting to talk?
From a vegan’s point of view it may be decision time: which way to go for the best sales ‘pitch’. I’d like to suggest that it’s not quite a case of: “I mustn’t offend my friend therefore I must soften my position”, it’s more “I must make it attractive, a gift, a service I’m wanting to perform”. Can I “affectionately deliver the argument, show good intention as well as emphasise the self-benefit of it all. Vegans need to talk, they need to be patient enough to wait for the invitation to talk. But at the end of the “day” we have to be able to say to the other person, “Take it or (if you’d prefer) leave it”. You can lead a horse to water …
“Seriously?”
Saturday 3rd July 2010
The Vegan advocate ultimately sets out to impress and inspire, without the use of emotional blackmail or clever persuasion.
The subtle process of influencing others (to get them to think more the way we think!!) involves acceptance on all fronts – at some stage we need to show our friends and family an acceptance of opposing views, views which are not in agreement with our own. This is ‘acceptance’ rather than approval (tricky area) –translating as a promise NEVER to get hostile over ANYthing. ‘The opposition’ need to be assured of an equality of status between us, before there’s any launching into the deep waters surrounding this subject of animals having rights – or ‘Animal Rights’.
If that assurance isn’t there, and reinforced frequently, there will always be a reluctance to start any sort of meaningful dialogue. If equality isn’t established we’re in a no-go zone - it’s a “shut-down” mode. Dialogue begins when the fear factor is reduced and when the subject is taken seriously – that’s an initial tacit agreement. The vegan may have well-thought-out positions and the omnivore probably has their own ‘position’ less well-thought-out, and this is why we should not get heavy about a subject others know relatively little about. All we ask of the omnivore is that they agree that ‘animal rights’ is a ‘serious subject’. If it isn’t I believe we have the right to ask why.
I believe it’s sensible, before any conversation starts, to agree that this isn’t a frivolous matter and that we won’t be wasting our time discussing the subject. But once that agreement is in place (and that we aren’t limiting the ‘subject’ to the food-diet-health issues alone, then something profound can come out of discussion. When talk starts people will come across because they will have been inspired and made their own decision, not because they’ve been cajoled by us.
The Vegan advocate ultimately sets out to impress and inspire, without the use of emotional blackmail or clever persuasion.
The subtle process of influencing others (to get them to think more the way we think!!) involves acceptance on all fronts – at some stage we need to show our friends and family an acceptance of opposing views, views which are not in agreement with our own. This is ‘acceptance’ rather than approval (tricky area) –translating as a promise NEVER to get hostile over ANYthing. ‘The opposition’ need to be assured of an equality of status between us, before there’s any launching into the deep waters surrounding this subject of animals having rights – or ‘Animal Rights’.
If that assurance isn’t there, and reinforced frequently, there will always be a reluctance to start any sort of meaningful dialogue. If equality isn’t established we’re in a no-go zone - it’s a “shut-down” mode. Dialogue begins when the fear factor is reduced and when the subject is taken seriously – that’s an initial tacit agreement. The vegan may have well-thought-out positions and the omnivore probably has their own ‘position’ less well-thought-out, and this is why we should not get heavy about a subject others know relatively little about. All we ask of the omnivore is that they agree that ‘animal rights’ is a ‘serious subject’. If it isn’t I believe we have the right to ask why.
I believe it’s sensible, before any conversation starts, to agree that this isn’t a frivolous matter and that we won’t be wasting our time discussing the subject. But once that agreement is in place (and that we aren’t limiting the ‘subject’ to the food-diet-health issues alone, then something profound can come out of discussion. When talk starts people will come across because they will have been inspired and made their own decision, not because they’ve been cajoled by us.
Pushy vegans
Friday 2nd July 2010
We all use force. We use it to drive in a screw; we use it to stop the kids screaming all day. But on a far less benign level we use it unjustifiably. Whatever the circumstances, this force is always ugly and in the long term always ineffective.
Even if the polemic is justified, however deserving the animals are, the bottom line is that we can’t afford to be “pushy”; we live in a democracy, under law, and no one feels compelled to listen to us. In our protest against animal cruelty we want to be seen as confident and determined. But if we start to preach we lose the plot.
On this subject of animals having rights it seems to us, as vegans, so utterly logical and right. Of course we want others to know about it. But in defending the idea, if we get pushy (on the animals’ behalf) it doesn’t help them. Being forceful and making people feel uncomfortable, finger wagging and taking the moral high ground is a bit yesterday, and avoidable!
Whatever the reasoning behind using force, somehow the other way (convoluted though it seems sometimes) feels more genuine, seems friendlier as if we are approachable. Somehow we need to stop them running away as soon as they know we’re vegan. When you poke a bit of fun at yourself it’s a direct signal to anyone who is nervous, and you can tell it’s been picked up by the sense of relief on people’s faces when we start talking.
Once we launch into our ‘vegan’ what is SHOULDN’T look like is an ‘attack on the wicked omnivore’. What is SHOULD look like … impossible to say. How do you describe a whole manner? And each of us is different in our style. Perhaps it’s a gentleness of approach to this very difficult subject - we scream peacefulness. There’s something about this notion of “vegan harmlessness”. It has a nice ring to it. Maybe it’s a bit cheeky, yes, but it’s never pushy and most certainly never offensive.
One can only speak for oneself … my aim would be “not-confronting” – that’s selfish because I’m super uncomfortable with any confrontation, when it’s unfriendly I mean. I’d emphasise this approach, being about 50% of my whole ‘performance’ (because let’s face it, our spiel about animals, veganism, etc. is a rehearsed argument). I go IN very soft, very quickly, until I can gauge their real interest. Mainly I’m friendly because it’s what I expect from them, like when I’m with a sports fanatic and tell them I hate all sport!
We expect interesting but safe interactions with others. We all love a good fight, but a ‘good’ one not involving violence … any sort of violence. Most of us have grown up in relative peace, expecting no hostile attitude from who ever we meet. Here, advocating for animals, we’re representing a significantly important movement. It’s not really about us as activists but about liberating animals. We’re setting standards of behaviour as well as disseminating information. We’re self-appointed ambassadors for the voiceless. If they could speak would they contemplate violence? Perhaps not. They’d keep the peace. And even in the most heated exchanges with other people over the question of animal rights, why would we lose our cool, over anything? Why spoil your day?
As vegans we need to be trusted on all sorts of levels, is our information correct? Are we nice people? Particularly we need to be trusted NOT to fly off the handle over sensitive issues. Vegans need to be trusted not to be boring. By being interesting and showing an interest in others’ views, we stand a better chance of a really spirited conversation. It won’t even get started if we can’t convince people we’re talking to that we do not want to hurt them. We can show that by the tone of our voice and the look of our body language.
For those of us who have violent tendencies we must swear three thousand promises NOT to set out to hurt. After all, if vegans call for harmlessness on one level they must respect it on all levels, surely. There’s so much hurt in the world, why add to it? It’s like a vasectomised man in an overpopulated world who might not want to add to ‘the mix’ …
In a nutshell, never get involved in emotionally attacking anyone, especially if they’ve asked us to talk to them about this issue.
We all use force. We use it to drive in a screw; we use it to stop the kids screaming all day. But on a far less benign level we use it unjustifiably. Whatever the circumstances, this force is always ugly and in the long term always ineffective.
Even if the polemic is justified, however deserving the animals are, the bottom line is that we can’t afford to be “pushy”; we live in a democracy, under law, and no one feels compelled to listen to us. In our protest against animal cruelty we want to be seen as confident and determined. But if we start to preach we lose the plot.
On this subject of animals having rights it seems to us, as vegans, so utterly logical and right. Of course we want others to know about it. But in defending the idea, if we get pushy (on the animals’ behalf) it doesn’t help them. Being forceful and making people feel uncomfortable, finger wagging and taking the moral high ground is a bit yesterday, and avoidable!
Whatever the reasoning behind using force, somehow the other way (convoluted though it seems sometimes) feels more genuine, seems friendlier as if we are approachable. Somehow we need to stop them running away as soon as they know we’re vegan. When you poke a bit of fun at yourself it’s a direct signal to anyone who is nervous, and you can tell it’s been picked up by the sense of relief on people’s faces when we start talking.
Once we launch into our ‘vegan’ what is SHOULDN’T look like is an ‘attack on the wicked omnivore’. What is SHOULD look like … impossible to say. How do you describe a whole manner? And each of us is different in our style. Perhaps it’s a gentleness of approach to this very difficult subject - we scream peacefulness. There’s something about this notion of “vegan harmlessness”. It has a nice ring to it. Maybe it’s a bit cheeky, yes, but it’s never pushy and most certainly never offensive.
One can only speak for oneself … my aim would be “not-confronting” – that’s selfish because I’m super uncomfortable with any confrontation, when it’s unfriendly I mean. I’d emphasise this approach, being about 50% of my whole ‘performance’ (because let’s face it, our spiel about animals, veganism, etc. is a rehearsed argument). I go IN very soft, very quickly, until I can gauge their real interest. Mainly I’m friendly because it’s what I expect from them, like when I’m with a sports fanatic and tell them I hate all sport!
We expect interesting but safe interactions with others. We all love a good fight, but a ‘good’ one not involving violence … any sort of violence. Most of us have grown up in relative peace, expecting no hostile attitude from who ever we meet. Here, advocating for animals, we’re representing a significantly important movement. It’s not really about us as activists but about liberating animals. We’re setting standards of behaviour as well as disseminating information. We’re self-appointed ambassadors for the voiceless. If they could speak would they contemplate violence? Perhaps not. They’d keep the peace. And even in the most heated exchanges with other people over the question of animal rights, why would we lose our cool, over anything? Why spoil your day?
As vegans we need to be trusted on all sorts of levels, is our information correct? Are we nice people? Particularly we need to be trusted NOT to fly off the handle over sensitive issues. Vegans need to be trusted not to be boring. By being interesting and showing an interest in others’ views, we stand a better chance of a really spirited conversation. It won’t even get started if we can’t convince people we’re talking to that we do not want to hurt them. We can show that by the tone of our voice and the look of our body language.
For those of us who have violent tendencies we must swear three thousand promises NOT to set out to hurt. After all, if vegans call for harmlessness on one level they must respect it on all levels, surely. There’s so much hurt in the world, why add to it? It’s like a vasectomised man in an overpopulated world who might not want to add to ‘the mix’ …
In a nutshell, never get involved in emotionally attacking anyone, especially if they’ve asked us to talk to them about this issue.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Same-old, same-old
How can we ensure that, within the protest movement, we won’t become ‘forceful’, even violent? When we’re talking to people on this Most Important Subject, do we, as vegans, attempt to force people to agree with us? If we do, how do we justify that? Perhaps we use the animals as an excuse to be a bully. Do we do it this way to get our rocks off ? Do we have an overwhelming urge to vent our spleen?
It comes across as boring, same old-same old. If we have something to say let it be useful and sound original, as if it comes from the heart and not from the vegan text book.
It comes across as boring, same old-same old. If we have something to say let it be useful and sound original, as if it comes from the heart and not from the vegan text book.
Being “right”
Wednesday 30th June 2010
For vegans, we have such cast iron arguments we can’t believe they don’t have magical powers. Certainly our arguments are powerful but maybe not yet imbued with magic. That’s what vegans have to do. Bring them to life.
To animal-food-addicted omnivores our arguments don’t seem very magic, in fact they’re a blasted nuisance. Omnivores build cast iron barricades, to precisely guard them selves from vegan assault. To them we are The Heresy. That’s extreme of course, but almost opposite are vegans who think their arguments are ‘sent from God’. Perception to perception it’s omnivore outrage at vegan heresy against the authority vegans feel about their principles of harmlessness.
But of course delusion, belief, ego and all sorts of rights and wrongs muddy the waters. It comes down to perception here. Our arguments might as well have no weight at all if we, as ‘identifiable-with humans, seem like poor ambassadors.
We know omnivore logic is faulty but the trap for us, with our better arguments, is that we begin to feel we are “right”. Right about all sorts of things, and if we feel it we show it. And that’s what is so off-putting to omnivores. It’s our smugness that puts people off. We have a neat answer for people but it’s “look at me, how terrific I am, how healthy, guiltless …” etc. Vegans do it, we all do it. We all do it in our various ways and nothing’s more unattractive than this. It’s what they call here in Australia “big-noting oneself”.
I do it, I put others ‘off’ in this way and ultimately screw things for the Animal Rights Movement. Vegans like me have to control our passions and make sure we don’t give off the signal: that we’re willing to forfeit friendliness for the sake of making a point. What’s so hard for omnivores, when they meet a vegan, is that they don’t know if we’ll suddenly ‘turn’ on them.
We need to concentrate on our style of approach. Think court jester, think of the jester’s style - always respectful, always affectionate, always stirring.
For vegans, we have such cast iron arguments we can’t believe they don’t have magical powers. Certainly our arguments are powerful but maybe not yet imbued with magic. That’s what vegans have to do. Bring them to life.
To animal-food-addicted omnivores our arguments don’t seem very magic, in fact they’re a blasted nuisance. Omnivores build cast iron barricades, to precisely guard them selves from vegan assault. To them we are The Heresy. That’s extreme of course, but almost opposite are vegans who think their arguments are ‘sent from God’. Perception to perception it’s omnivore outrage at vegan heresy against the authority vegans feel about their principles of harmlessness.
But of course delusion, belief, ego and all sorts of rights and wrongs muddy the waters. It comes down to perception here. Our arguments might as well have no weight at all if we, as ‘identifiable-with humans, seem like poor ambassadors.
We know omnivore logic is faulty but the trap for us, with our better arguments, is that we begin to feel we are “right”. Right about all sorts of things, and if we feel it we show it. And that’s what is so off-putting to omnivores. It’s our smugness that puts people off. We have a neat answer for people but it’s “look at me, how terrific I am, how healthy, guiltless …” etc. Vegans do it, we all do it. We all do it in our various ways and nothing’s more unattractive than this. It’s what they call here in Australia “big-noting oneself”.
I do it, I put others ‘off’ in this way and ultimately screw things for the Animal Rights Movement. Vegans like me have to control our passions and make sure we don’t give off the signal: that we’re willing to forfeit friendliness for the sake of making a point. What’s so hard for omnivores, when they meet a vegan, is that they don’t know if we’ll suddenly ‘turn’ on them.
We need to concentrate on our style of approach. Think court jester, think of the jester’s style - always respectful, always affectionate, always stirring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)