Post 1970, post 2010

However much we learn about this subject, we’re always disappointed by what’s being picked up by others. In our society for all the ugly human dealings with animals, we still won’t recognise animal rights. It’s as if omnivores (animal-users) either know nothing or care nothing about this subject. It is evicted from thought so that most people don’t even know they don’t care.
Either way, we animal advocates are missing our target. We’re not convincing people about the need for the liberation of animals. Until vegans reach-out rather than push-away, nothing will change. By becoming more professional (less oikish) in our approach we become more reliable. Then we seem safer as people and what we say more likely to reach them. Obviously, if we just let things work out how they will, if we simply leave it to them to find out, they’ll be side-tracked by other issues (which are nonetheless important issues).
As activists we vie for attention-space. Every advertiser and sloganeer shouts for attention. We need to be different. We need to stand out as that much more responsible, professional. Unless we stop waving our arms about, until we move past the shouting stage and get closer into hearing range, people will look the other way. They’ll be seduced by those who ‘do it’ better than we do.
Admittedly, we start with a distinct disadvantage in the first place. Unlike the save-planet-save-children causes, which can appeal to self-interest, ours at first can’t (perception-wise). Ours just looks like hard work. It’s a tough message.
We need all our skill to help it along. Erm, we don’t need to capsize it by alienating omnivores. We’re supposed to help them along, ease their perception-worries, so they’ll be able to pick up on what we’re saying.

Getting good and judgmental

Monday 30th August 2010

In 2010 there are many decision-making people acting irrationally, worsening the mess we’re in instead of improving it. Vegans must address the rationally-intentioned, having faith in them, having faith in the effectiveness of en masse boycott to end the Animal Industries.
Vegans are proposing a straightforward solution … and, of course, either non-vegans are unaware of it or they’re continuing to ignore it. For us it’s frustrating. We know people have the intelligence to grasp the logic of our argument but something is not connecting. So we wait. During which time we hope to find out why it isn’t happening. After all, some ordinary people, stimulated by the horror decide to act. Other ordinary people aren’t similarly affected by the same stimuli. Why?
There’s trouble in the ranks down at the Vegan Detective Agency. Some want to look for clues to the crime, others just want the culprits punished. Some of us never give up our appeal to the average omnivore’s intelligence, others just get annoyed and judge them negatively. I’d say this is the major divide at the Agency, between one type of vegan and another, between those who issue “fatwas” on people they don’t like and others who want to educate them.
The first sort of vegan gets angry – it makes them feel good to get it ‘off their chest’. They judge “the animal eater”. It sounds good, strong, decisive and empowered. A very amateur attempt at shifting the paradigm, but by condemning others, directly or by implication, we separate from them. We see ourselves ‘apart’, even ‘better-than’, and that ends up in tears, especially when we quarrel with people we’re close to. The gulf between vegans and non-vegans grows deep and wide very quickly; within seconds, we can separate from someone, just by ‘making a stand’, just by getting a bit personal about it.
In post-quarrel land, it’s an uphill slog in trying to restore balance. ‘Angry’ goes to judgement goes to unnecessarily complicating issues between us. First up we need some mutual respect, then comes some imparting of information.
The reason our ‘mutual separations’ occur, over this animal question, isn’t just because of food, health and cruelty issues, it’s also about our attitude towards judging. Value judging, the negative sort, concerning the non-vegan’s “contempt” for animals. Nothing makes a vegan angrier quicker than hearing the phrase “They’re just animals”. It implies that animal are dumb and we can do as we please with them. Let them suffer. And vegans do passionately care about the suffering of animals. We want to let non-vegans know how deeply outraged we are.
But usually our arguments do no good because reasonable discussion is made almost impossible by their reading our ‘outrage’. Judgement clothed in a show of sensitivity on the vegan’s part. The atmosphere is never clear enough to shift the dark cloud hanging over proceedings; you can almost smell the value judgment in the air. It’s always more threatening than inviting. We vegans just can’t seem to resist the temptation to knee jerk reactions of shock and disappointment … in that reasonable people can be so unreasonable. But the feeling is mutual – they see us as “self-righteous do-gooders”. Both myths need to be exploded. Partly true, partly untrue.
The more we learn about animals, the greater the gap grows between the perception-world of the average omnivore and the average vegan. As outrage deepens amongst us, we begin to take umbrage, offended by the dismissiveness of animal eaters. And anger brings on the ‘knee jerk response’ of disliking. If we don’t like our ‘adversaries’ we show it.
If there’s no anger we won’t waste precious moments when we might be using that time to assess the sort of person we’re talking to. It’s important to spend these few microseconds to gauge where to pitch our remarks, and decide which (if any) facts we going to bring to their attention … avail them of NOT assail them with! And that gets us past wanting to be judgemental.

Boycott the bastards

As soon as the penny drops, that we’re un-supported, we get scared - vegan, animal rights, activist advocates I mean. There’s a “sad me” for vegans. It’s perhaps how we feel about our own situation. We want that sadness though to be constructive, directed towards others who need it desperately, who live in the realm of tortured animals and poisoned planets. The sadness we should all feel is for the walled in humans who have wrought this havoc. Our sadness is in realising the thickness of the omnivore wall. Their attitude-wall encloses them and their jailers alike - the leaders and their leaders, the magnates.
Although the magnates aren’t entirely to blame for the mess we’re in, they have initiated the recent escalations and been emboldened by the support of sycophantic ‘leaders’ and subservient consumers. Hey, but forget ‘blame’. Look to clues, to unravelling this mess. Put up the antennae. Feel in the wind. Don’t get lost! Divine the source of wise-choice. Be drawn … obviously I’m going to say ‘go-vegan’!!
What I feel drawn to are magnets, I mean ‘magnates’. They’re the ones providing all the clues to where we are. If we’re lost, look to the largest corporate magnate - the multi-stranded Animal Industry. It’s the most diabolically cruel and greatest greenhouse emitter of all the industries. It needs boycotting.

Gut service

However omnivores see themselves they’re pulled in two directions at once. Vegans have relieved themselves of that pressure.
For omnivores, it always comes down to their own safety and comfort. Convenience calls the shots. It’s my comfort versus the animal gulag down the road. 2010 promises every luxury you can imagine … but at what cost? Many animals must die to provide for our safety and comfort, and before that they’re imprisoned in ultra-slum conditions.
The very thought of that could be enough to keep the omnivore awake at night, and that’s just for starters. Our brain tells us one thing and our gut feeling another. Gut says be careful. This all smells of pernicious danger. Our gut feeling says we aren’t safe. On the one hand we’re being poisoned (with animal stuff, as well as other things) but we’re used to it … and yet as we get older we notice the slow effects of our diet over the years. We aren’t comfortable. Our stomach is full enough but something has gone sluggish. We have safety and comfort. But it’s all up in the mind not in the gut.
“Gut” is the digestive tract. But it’s also the word for instinct. Also the word for courage. Maybe our brains are in touch with the gut. Warning us of danger, calling up bravery. Gut gets us out of the danger. But gut also means to rip the innards out of a living being, as in gutting a fish. It means hanging-drawing and quartering the animal. It means one of the worst violences we’ve ever dreamt up - cutting into a suffocating victim. Humans don’t suffer gutting but we use the word to stand for shocked – “gutted”. And vegans are gutted by the unreported horror story going on all about us so we are at the opposite, safe, comfortable and without having to feel gutted every time we open our digestive tract and drop violence into it.
At the opposite ‘vegan’ end is guts. What we need to answer a call for self-sacrificing courage. We reckon this promises us “comfort” – that’s the finest foods plus a much sought after fearlessness state to live in. But omnivores beware, one act of vegetarian ‘goodness’ does not solve very much at all. Fearlessness there isn’t. A fridge full of little comforts don’t fall off trees, they come stamped with execution too. Although animal products give comfort they’re haunting us (and silently poisoning us at the same time).
But guts does not a fine person make. Life has tension and within ‘gut’ there’s conflict - temptation, guilt, a fattening-food fear of a growing gut. How do we deal with each of these and still lie straight in our beds, erm … I mean get all the sleep we need.
I suspect vegans sleep well at night, relatively un-plagued by fatness or guilt about animal cruelty … b. b.bbut, the stakes are high. For vegans. Instead of guilt we take on a responsibility for a whole planet. A big job.
Vegans would love you alongside – your support is the most valuable thing to establish vegan principle, as a going concern. Animals need your support as much as vegans want to be of service to omnivores, in this matter.

250 capital crimes

At some point in a discussion we need to establish the scale of the crime we’re talking about. (To us it’s a really appalling crime but it isn’t yet, necessarily, to omnivores). Animal exploitation - once the ‘crime-status’ is established there’s no need to go back over it again and again. Our main job is to establish why we think it’s a crime, that’s all. That’s the main difference between an omnivore and a vegan is their evaluation of the situation.
First, before discussing if it IS a crime, we have to settle in the ‘collective vegan head’, that people in general are not idiots. We must credit them with enough raw intelligence to understand what we’re saying to them. And no, they mightn’t react the way we want, but they may take it in. If we use something like a shock fact, the ‘250’ deaths, (see yesterday’s blog) the impact is powerful. It arrests people in their thinking, because it’s a surprisingly large number and it implies that each omnivore is responsible for many animal executions every year (amounting to 25,000 if get to be one hundred years old!!).
Once this ‘crime’ is mentioned, we’ve effectively laid our cards on the table. And then, at least, we can have a sensible discussion. Hopefully without too much heavy value judgement. Our emphasis should be on gullibility - how people have been bamboozled by The Animal Industry. How otherwise beautiful people have been drawn into the clutches of an ugly world (parallel to the beautiful one we also know).
If 250 deaths are carried out on our behalf, then there’s no other statistic necessary - the whole cruelty thing is terrible but if we weren’t eating them (killing them) we wouldn’t be breeding them in the first place … and no horror would be happening.

‘250’ for me

Imagine how it would be if people DID respond differently to what vegans were saying - rather than getting defensive, suppose they came over to seeing things from the animals’ side. Imagine how it would be if vegans approached omnivores without wanting to attack them. Imagine how we’d sound without the din of judgement in our voices.
It’s up to vegans who want to talk on this subject to have a couple of shock facts in the bag, but no more. They’re stun grenades after all. They’re there if things turn illogical. Just having them at hand helps us feel confident in the face of group opposition. And with that confidence we can free range in conversation with anybody. We can follow what they want to talk about. Then let them pick up on a link to more profound matters. Most importantly, we should learn to trust the discussion, to go where it may. But as a trump up our sleeve, it’s incontrovertible facts that we can use if necessary. Like this one: that in the West we each eat 250 animals a year. Let people chew on it. Why go further? The rest of the argument, about ‘why vegan’, is merely detail.

Oiks

I know a most pushy vegan, loathed and loved. He has great compassion within a rough, take-no-prisoners nature. I know the most ineffectual vegans who are really nice people but aren’t identifiable-with.
In the end it comes down to being able to identify with another … and, with fellow humans, that comes down to resonating with what a person says. And that rests with the person themselves - are they genuine in what they say? It may take years to be sure of this. In this case, is the vegan we know actually true to what she says. But even if we’re sure about her sincerity, are we that interested?
So vegans have got to be true, obviously, but they need to spark something in others. Must we impress them? Yes, but it’s the subject and all that it ignites (or doesn’t!) that’s important here. We aren’t in a wanna-be-liked competition, vegans just need to inspire interest, empathy, compassion, with and for the poor creatures presently languishing in their prison cells. Must we inspire their interest? Yes, and without alienating them. We don’t want them to ‘close the book, never to be opened again’.
We’re more likely to get omnivores interested (er, I mean inspired!) in what we have to say about animal issues, if we can show how significant it is and how it pertains to today’s Whole Global Problems which haunt every single aware-ised adult on the planet.
So, how to interest the as-yet-uninterested? What is the universal ‘touching point’ to which all people can relate? And here we come to the Universal Human, that human who is conscious of the significance of humanity.
That unusual family down the road, the Universals, they see a glorious future for the race, a future which comes about after we wipe the egg from our face and start again … but ughh!! … ‘start-again’ sounds awful. Ugh, no.
“Food? What? Me change my breakfast routines, ugh, sandwiches made of what? Ugh! Dinner is how? … And what is it you wear on your feet … to be in fashion with other dudes?” …“Me start again? And take up what?” … “Ya gotta be jokin” … Food. Oh hell, and shoes too!!”
… and yet
There are travellers through these regions. They’ve come out of the wild lands and seem unharmed, vegan for ten years. Everyone looks at them for signs of collapse. Since all they eat are lettuce leaves, these vegans are surely about to collapse, perhaps most of them have died off already. Thank God!
Vegans, fellow travellers, do have enough to spark curiosity. Within veganism there’s a clue to the future, and that’s the ultimate attraction. With that in mind even fashion is downgraded, even favourite ice creams and chocs can go. We can do extraordinary things (with both food and shoes) to show we take ourselves seriously. Seriously enough to eat an unusual diet and wear basic footwear, seriously enough to be sure what we say isn’t bunkum.
Vegans must be sure of their information because it is so different to the standard stuff coming out of the Science, Education and Propaganda Departments. It is, after all, a whole other way of seeing things, a way of seeing ahead to a ‘glorious future’. For this we need something well delivered - if we take a little trouble with our presentation (showing ‘them’ we’re not oiks, just out for a cheap shot) we’ll be seen as ‘a possibility’. That would be brilliant. That would be all. That would be a start to getting people to respond to us differently.

Omnivores laughing at vegans

As vegans, we know we have a watertight case. That makes us appear rather too confident about our views. We’re so obviously on the right track that all established vegans see it just that way. Perhaps then, with the very best intentions, we abuse that advantage. Rightness emboldens a sort of ‘quasi-violence’ - a stab here and a punch there to drive our message home.
The sledgehammer mentality reminds me of kids fighting in the playground. The reason they’re fighting is less about reasons and more about fists. A blood lust. Again you see it with kids, when they’re ‘right’, scoring ‘coolness’ points. Or when you hear them boasting about their “latest mischief”. So childish, we say.
Their sledge hammering is crude but it’s their game of one-upmanship, vital for establishing pecking order. But it stays with us as we grow up. As adults we fid ourselves still doing the same thing, except the ‘cool’ has changed and become more insidious – the new ‘cool’ is all about looking relaxed. It’s still the look of fearlessness we tried to drum up as kids. But this time, in the new form it’s a showing that one isn’t afraid of … dangerous foods, animal foods (hastening to say that I doubt if they see these foods as ‘dangerous’, not in the way a vegan does). These foods are symbolic of danger, in a dominator-human-goes-out-to-kill-his-meat sort of way.
But this rave here isn’t about the meat-eater’s macho, it’s about vegan macho and the techniques we use to ‘communicate’ our belief in Animal Rights. If any part of our ‘presentation’ includes making value judgements we’ve failed before we’ve started. Every value judgement, made by a vegan, is going to be reciprocated, punch for punch. That’s for certain.
Omnivores (in responding) do it first by making a ‘declaration of dismissal’ - vegan point of view denied and open for send-up. That’s the initial response to any attack, to disarm mentally, to use laughter to ease the tension … for just long enough to compute a nifty reply. They laugh and it’s not enjoyment-laughter but nervous laughter, allowing time to formulate the ‘coup de grace’ remark. And omnivores know how to hit back. So battle ensues.
No need to list the remarks or weak spots here. We know how they reflect attitudes about animal use. Each unoriginal and uninteresting, usually having as little reasoning behind their arguments as you’d find in a kid’s squabble.
A circle of exchanges begins - not a scrap of strategy in sight, no serious attempt to reach agreement and no satisfaction to be had unless from blood spilt.
Omnivore encounters ‘judgemental-vegan’,
Omnivore laughs (if not out loud),
Omnivore withdraws from ‘talking about IT’,
Mission accomplished. Book closed never to be opened again.

Their out-loud laugh says it all - as if to say “I am not taking this vegan stuff seriously - the Whole Subject of Animal Rights is a ‘non-issue’”. In private they may say: “All vegans are shits to be sent to Coventry”.
The general view, if not expressed quite like this, is that vegans (apart from very rare ones who aren’t pushy) stink … and then, extending pleasantly, “ … a stupid word to use but I can’t express just how utterly NOT-vegan I am”. And with that determination it’s set in concrete. The feeling is entrenched. “Caste out ‘vegan’ reasoning”.
The omnivore has several good reasons for this.
Number one: vegans are intrusive … and there’s no need for any other reasons. That’s reason enough, to prove all vegans are a waste of space. Amongst their friends they respond appropriately to the telling of “The Story of the Pushy Vegan”. It’s told at every dinner table … comfortable image.
This is why, for heavens’ sake, we vegans just HAVE to internalise our outrage and sadness and heartbreak. It’s a millstone around our neck. It’s our weakest spot. It’s our emotional luggage weighing us down. Okay, we’re sincere. Get over it. We must OUT ourselves in this respect: we aren’t looking for pity for the animals nor for our selves either. Maybe we‘re pissed about being excluded, for entertaining left-out-of-it feelings. So, we have to get used to it. It’s strengthening in the long run. Eventually it helps us win hearts. It helps with our betrothal to the human race!
If what we say is NOT to be taken judgementally then how IS it to be taken? That’s the question to ask ourselves. There are no rules in this game (however dangerously we play it) as long as it’s played with some style and concentrates on the truth.

Vegans shaming omnivores

Between us, omnivores and vegans, this is what I think can happen: the vegan points out a horror fact about animals and that forces a response - in effect it challenges the heart and the mind at the same time. There’s no honourable way to escape the trap tat is “vegan argument” so they attack back.
Once our shock-fact has been delivered, for us it’s ‘mission accomplished’ – we let them draw implications about what they do. We leave them to understand why we’ve brought the subject up, in the first place. You don’t have to be Einstein to work out what’s going on here. The moral raider strikes.
Omnivores dislike this very much. They don’t thank vegans for igniting shame in them, much less for demeaning them in the process, speaking in s-i-m-p-l-e language, like parent to small child. The resentment about us being so sure of ourselves is enough to override logic.
Feeling-wise, vegans seem to dislike omnivores and get into their attack uniform at the first opportunity. Vegans reckon they have to shout to make themselves heard.
This is where we, as vegans, have probably got to ask ourselves – “What is it I want, for myself, from Animal Rights - to be right, to feel superior or to teach?
Another tricky skill taught and learnt is reading. Does an infants’ teacher make illiterate kids feel ashamed because they can’t read? No, she teaches them with skill and patience and understands their specific problems, thus, eventually … they read. In our case, as adult-to-adult, we need patience and all the rest of it, so we can be with omnivores without biting their head off all the time, about how they are living. We must see how deeply deluded they are by their ‘safety in numbers’, that the majority do it so it must be okay. By showing compassion for omnivores in this way we ignite something more constructive than shame. And more lasting.

Compassion

Sunday 22nd August 2010
If an omnivore feels compassionate by nature, how do they feel when they meet someone (a vegan) who accuses them of not caring about animals? Is there conflict?
Imagine how any value judgement can make you feel – “liar”, “cheat”, “brute” … they’re attacks on the relationship, especially if they’re evidence-backed. Even more so if they’re true.
When a vegan condemns an omnivore for not being bothered about animal cruelty it can cut deep. It questions one’s compassion. I think most “no-use-animals”-messages come across this way. They attack on two fronts; not caring; not grasping the logic.
It’s as if we see omnivores as incapable of taking a logical approach to their decision making, particularly in the case of vegan food. We’d say it’s a simple failure of intelligence … coupled with heartlessness. Our double whammy attack intends to hit hard.
For omnivores, defending themselves from vegan attack, they’ll seek to lessen the impact. If the attack has hit home, and vegans usually know the omnivore’s Achilles heel, it will say “you have no brain and no heart”. It’s difficult for any omnivore to wriggle out of this - the truer the accusation the harder the attack feels. The omnivore will strike back more violently, the sharper the vegan’s sting.
Contrary to ‘standard vegan view’ attacking doesn’t help. It doesn’t stimulate self examination, but the very opposite. On no account will the omnivore see themselves as wayward – they being right by way of being in the majority (indeed, the vast majority). It is natural for ‘dominant humans’ to meet attack with derision and then counter attack.
At first glance the confidence behind their defence is astonishing … until you realise that conventional thinking has a lot of ‘majority-think’ behind it, enough even to question the integrity or sanity of the attacker. For them, what is in questioned here is so fundamental to life (eating food) and so universal amongst humans in every country in the world (eating animal foods) that personal change is pointless.
Vegans, of course, don’t see it that way!!

Downgrading logic

Saturday 21st August

If a person wants to indulge their fancy for fried eggs they must manipulate their logic, to marry the delicious taste in their mouth with the rightness of it in the brain. I’m sure psychopaths have a similar problem when they thirst for murder but know it makes no sense. We all accommodate “convenient” habits and twist our logic to suit our own best interests.
The eating of meat is justified with threadbare arguments so people with good brains, who’re intellectually advantaged, have to do some sloppy thinking to think this thing through, particularly if it has a bearing on “human club” membership.
In effect it comes down to compromise the soft centre in order to harden up. That’s pragmatism and what’s required of adults, but it makes us subservient to club rules, it reflects the weak, “me-centred” nature of the adult human. As decision-making adults we are expected to manipulate our acceptance levels. We lay aside logic to pay our dues and enjoy the rewards. And that was always the cause of our embarrassment as humans, that our intellectual prowess must be laid aside to allow certain primitive instincts to take over.
The predator in us is stronger than our self-image, as sophisticated advanced beings. In particular this was (and still is) the dilemma over keeping humans as slaves, and the next dilemma is over the slavery of animals. It’s a disaster-in-waiting.
If a train is thundering down the line and your mate is in the way you’d push her off the line, even at your own risk, yes? That’s the sticking point: is it judgement or is it protection to push him out of the way? “Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend”. So, vegans might not be gratuitously judgemental but simply doing their best to defend their friends from disaster.
My friend may be on top of a cliff, ready to his own life. The dilemma: should I intervene? It brings up the question of one person imposing their own values on another. Do we have a right to do that?
In terms of “imposing” our value-laden ideas on others, we drive a thin line between two extremes, both of which everyone knows only too well. And fears. We fear the loss of our free-will, we fear the loss of our life. Veganism treads on egg shells, between each. We might need to be subtle if we want to be effective. Today’s men and women and even children are so sophisticated in their thinking. We are all so aware of others coming in on our ‘act’. Surely, if I want to downgrade my logic, I have the right to do so.
As vegans, we might agree, but we’d like the chance to break through the bullshit of it too! The intelligentsia has a bit of a problem here. They pretend to be capable of logical thought and yet over this question of personal use of certain putative harmful substances they refuse to address the subject logically. If they did it would show a chink in their intellectual armour.

Clash of cultures

Except for vegans from birth, all of us have compromised our principles over the foods we’ve used. And we’ve justified it with some rather shallow thinking. Here we see vegans accusing omnivores of one central fault - that they couldn’t care less, but it’s likely not to be how omnivore sees themselves. To them it sounds like unfair criticism; the omnivore would say that they do care. They care about many things … “but there are limits”. Using-animals just doesn’t register on the omnivore radar.
Most omnivores know very little about how vegans think and probably don’t take us seriously anyway. To vegans “meat-eating” shows contempt for animals and therefore proves that a person doesn’t care enough about what’s happening to them. There’s no common ground here and there’s a misperception of each other, and it’s complicated. Apart from the strong cultural traditions holding habits in place there’s a new culture establishing new habits held together by vegan principle. It’s a clash of cultures and it’s not as simple as it seems. Vegans are making a terrible accusation: that “meat-eaters” ethically dumb themselves down deliberately so they can enjoy their animal foods with impunity. Omnivores accuse vegans of being the new police, intent on spoiling the very pleasure of living that can be enjoyed by ordinary people, that being the eating of readily available animal products. There’s a gulf between the two. The nature of that gulf the wideness or narrowness of it is the question we are dealing with here. Why are some humans able to be hard while others are incapable of it and will test “the limits”?

Arrogance-free

Inevitably we resent the arrogance of the majority. This leads to anger, frustration and “judgement”. We get angry because we haven’t been able to persuade them to vegan principles. We see the value of this change: they don’t. The more we want them to change the less they want to comply. As soon as we find something we’d like to change about people, in comes ‘judgement’.
As activists we’re familiar with factory farming techniques. Most of us are aware of what’s going on behind the scenes with animals. On the other hand, we know omnivores aren’t aware. And if they are, they choose not to look. If they did, they’d find out where their favourite foods come from … and no prizes for guessing what happens then! They’ll see “all this” as off-limits. So, we’re back to square one, whatever we tell people it will be like water off a duck’s back. For this we judge them – selling out for the sake of convenience and personal pleasure.
Arrogance is one of the heaviest judgements we can level at someone. We say it’s arrogant to evade such an important issue. But both sides see arrogance in the other. Each judges the other for their faulty reasoning on this subject of ‘animal-usage’. They hate us criticising them, sighting us as arrogant purists. We judge them for being shallow and too arrogant to admit to their ‘muddled logic’. According to each one’s perception the other side seems arrogant.

Judgement-free

The worst thing about judging and disapproving is how much we unwittingly show of it. Even when we don’t think it’s possible, others can tell what we’re thinking. Even private thoughts can be sensed somehow. A twitch of the mouth, a sigh or a snigger gives the game away … we’re read like a book, allowing our opposite number to take advantage of that. We think we’re concealing our private value judgements, believing we’re more inscrutable than we really are. We don’t take account of the fact that most people are hypersensitive to even a hint of personal criticism. That’s why criticising rarely works out the way we hope it will.
We all get involved with this game of judging or being judged. As Animal Rights advocates, vegans judge ‘meatheads’. As free-agents, omnivores judge the judgers (vegans) … and so it goes on. But because we ‘plant-eaters’ are in such a tiny minority we don’t have a sense of authority. We easily lose self-confidence. We often use aggression to bolster our confidenceor make us seem more confident than we are. It’s easy for ‘them’, their confidence rides on the wave of ‘the vast majority’. For the minority to attempt to persuade the majority out of their confidence is as hard as pushing over a brick wall. The only way to win authority is to keep our persuasions judgement free.

Don’t condemn but encourage

Tuesday 17th August

We probably get more aggressive when we look less likely to win an argument. When no one listens, when everyone ignores you, you get angry. It’s a last resort to clinch the deal, when we sense we’ve already lost the argument. By not getting angry we can take time to plan a strategy, and a strategist will bide time and take the longer way round. They won’t weigh in, arms flailing, voice agitated but make themself available and accessible. If we seem a little on the nose it might make us uncomfortable, but better that than resorting to fear to communicate what we want to say. That really turns people off because it’s stupid to throw weight around without the recognised authority.
Vegans would be better off making positive judgements about people whenever they can … along the lines of being observers, watching our society growing up, albeit very slowly. You never know just how close someone is to doubting the conventional wisdom. We only need to light dark corners – it’s a long way from the business of cutting people down.
We’re seed planters (in more ways than one). After all, the world is dying for the want of positive encouragement, so surely we should be encouraging good intention and praising moderate achievement. We do it all the time with kids over their maths homework so why not with fellow adults, in their ethical development?

Too good to refuse

Like an athlete practising daily push-ups, we need to practise being non-judgemental. In our culture it doesn’t come easily. Slagging off the people we dislike is a popular pastime. Omnivores dislike anyone who spoils their dinner. If we continue talking about Animal Rights without permission, we’ll seem like gate-crashers; by entering a person’s space without an “okay” signal we’re seen as intrusive.
When you’re eating your leg of lamb and I criticise your food choice, I’m really saying that I think you are a “thug”. When you “eat lamb”, you’re judged (in vegan eyes) as either bad, violent or stupid. Each barb is meant to hurt or jolt. We always go for the tender spot, the omnivore’s conscience. What comes across sounds less like advice and more like revenge.
By attacking personal values we always provoke a response, of equal hurtfulness. That’s how quarrels start and how wars blow up. Humans have been doing this to one another for eons. Primitive humans always took that route as the quickest way to deal with their opponents. A quarrel threatens those who don’t agree with us.
The disagreement is often about food and specifically ‘animal’ food. Since food choice is central to our independent lifestyle as adults, a vegan’s rather short-tempered point of view, about making the wrong food choices, is hard to take. So, it’s probably wise for aggro vegans to veer towards presenting their arguments as something too good to refuse. We don’t need to modify our passion just our aggro.

Kicking and screaming

All of us hate being imposed upon, whether by illness or authority or fear. For omnivores there’d be no worse torture than having to live the life of a ‘lettuce-eater’. We don’t need converts “kicking a screaming” so we don’t need to apply pressure.
Vegans have a good case to make and don’t need to fuel up the guilt people have about their food habits. By coming on too strong, too soon or by saying too much is where we waste our best advantage. If we sell veganism with aggro or threats we reinforce the worst stereotype.
It might be exciting to ‘get through’ to a potential convert. In our concern not to let them forget what we tell them we get carried away. We over sell. And we think we might get away with it since they’ll see we’re doing it for their own good, we’re preparing them with some ‘hard facts of life’ … of course they’ll appreciate that. “If we speak loudly enough they will have to listen”? Not true. ‘They’ don’t have to listen to anything, least of all us. ‘They’ are in such a vast majority (everywhere on the planet) there’s no pressure on them from anywhere to take notice; in fact they can afford to condemn us for being judgemental (or pushy or whatever). And damn it, there’s some truth (not much but some) in what they say.
To vegans it seems unfair that omnivores will find any old excuse to ‘cut us off’. The main aim is to stop us saying what we want to say, and since they’re in-fashion they can avoid discussing any part of the animal issue if they want to.
To be effective in getting our message across we don’t need to be finger wagging. We simply have to offer people an idea that is too good to refuse.

How we see ourselves, as vegans

Vegan to vegan we are not on the nose to each other (some exceptions!!). I can’t think of any word to describe the positive feeling we have about our selves but it isn’t shame and disappointment. We’re liberated from particular feelings.
From our point of view, of course, how we see ourselves is different from how omnivores see us, both as individuals and as a group. Some vegans aren’t pushy-types and they see a potential ‘vegan convert’ in every carnivore. Some are very pushy and see others as people who “just don’t care”. Consequently there are two ways vegans see non-vegans: either we say “They’ll come across even if they’re kicking and screaming” or we say “They’ll come across because they’re attracted”.
Are we really caring people? Are we, as vegans, good with animals but not with humans? How big are we, especially when faced with people who judge us or hate us or dislike us or ignore us? How we see ourselves depends on how we see non-vegans.

On the nose

The hurtfulness of value judgement comes when we demand to be listened to, if we think the rightness of our cause gives us the right to make demands. Do we reckon we’ll be excused our pushy-ness because most people admire the stand we’re taking. We may believe people secretly want to be like us. WRONG!!
For most people, “our cause” is way off target. There are other more important things to consider. Of course from our viewpoint ‘they’ are wrong, but they’re right too, according to their perception; if we do have something to say are they telling us to polish up our act?
All vegans want change, big change, animal liberation change, and as soon as possible. We’re reluctant to believe what we’re up against and think we can push over a few walls, and that will be that. We refuse to accept there are huge forces against us (over food) swaying people’s minds. Swift change may not be imminent. In regard to animal rights, we ourselves might have changed but most others haven’t. It may be that ‘enlightenment’ won’t happen any time soon. For those vegans who think that way it’s depressing.
Let’s be frank, many vegans and most omnivores think a vegan revolution is unlikely. If so a vegan’s life amongst the omnivores might be agony; being ignored by the majority is bad enough but having to be always dodging the smell of animals being cremated drives some of us nuts. That’s why we say, “To hell with it, let’s just make war on the carnivore”.
But this devil-may-care approach, even a ‘pushy’ approach, is just a bit obvious today. Diet is changing anyway, plant-based foods are the ‘safe foods’ and probably most adults agree in theory that that’s true. We probably have a much bigger audience of potential listeners than we realise, if not quite as full-on as we’d like. Omnivores might be warming to the idea, even interested in what we’ve got to say, even attracted … but whoa … that doesn’t mean they want to join the “vegan club”. For most who are curious it isn’t yet a fully fledged conviction. The gulf between the mindless omnivore and the enlightened vegan is huge. How big the middle ground is, no one knows. But it’s likely that, at present, nothing concrete is happening. Most omnivores would prefer we weren’t around to pester them. They avoid us (maybe sub-consciously).
Vegans may be ‘on the nose’ to omnivores. But things are changing and we should be seen as forerunners, optimists and resource people. We should be sitting on the sunny side of the hill rather than the dark side, being the access point for an attractive lifestyle and an attractive attitude base. Ultimately attraction draws people in to see what’s on offer and to hear what’s being said. On the sunny side of the hill we may be a bit separate but never more that necessary.
Vegans may have two aims, to draw people to our view and to keep well out of their way at the same time, mainly for our own comfort – it’s a good idea to stay down wind of their lunchtime cremations, at all times with them but not too close to them!

Why do vegans dislike non-vegans?

… Hey, excuse me, not all vegans dislike non-vegans … but our image precedes us. Our reputation (as aggro activists or people-haters) is part of what we’re known by.
We’ve used aggression and confrontation in the past but it isn’t as relevant any more. It’s no longer a matter of getting noticed or getting our message ‘out’. Today we need the facts at our fingertips so that we can speak outrageously BUT without value-judging the people we’re talking to. And that might mean withholding information as much as delivering it.
Having said that, I have to admit there’s nothing’s better than a good stouch with a meat-eater!! It’s a release from the frustration of being ignored. But whatever our motives for educating others we must some fun for ourselves. We must preserve our own sanity. To that end there’s nothing like stirring people up to give us a good feeling (there’s not much fun to be had in serious talking about “animal abuse” because it just isn’t a jokey-jokey subject).
But in the end it all comes down to effectiveness - how what we say is taken and how we, as advocates, are accepted. Talking up “animal rights” always brings on heat. If anything it’s a ‘stir-up’ but that is quite distinct from personal aggression.
‘Aggro’ over “animal rights” or “veganism” is the face of some groups and those who represent them. If we’re lucky enough to get some press coverage of issues, TV coverage, etc, it seems like real progress and that makes us feel good … but it doesn’t get us far in the long run if we’re still coming across as angry. Some vegans are so consumed with anger they wear it like body odour.
If I look carefully at my own anger, I have to admit that sometimes I just want revenge! I secretly want to attack meat eaters as pay back for attacking animals. Big mistake!!
Do we, as vegans, try to make ‘them’ see the error of their ways, make ‘them’ feel uncomfortable? Do we provoke people in order to wake them up, to stimulate change in them? Maybe it’s valid enough, but not if we talk down to people or if we doubt them or if there’s disapproval in our voice. If we’re always condemnatory we seem to be thinking, “they’ll never change”.

Vegans who condemn

Wednesday 12th August 2010
From a vegan’s point of view, protesting is right. We know we aren’t a bunch of oiks. We know the aggro image is not fair, well, perhaps for some vegans, but for the majority of us it’s a false image. A nicer people you couldn’t meet. Some are shouters and some are a bit aggro … so if there are vegans who are aggressive … aggressive schmaggressive, yes, it does harm the cause but (in fairness) the aggro activist feels passion and isn’t afraid to show it. They would say, “Why not? The lounge lizards need a wake up call”. This leads on to justifying the dubious use of “aggro”; or it lets us be outrageous which almost gives us the right to be aggro. We say, “You fools, don’t you see how many lives are at stake… (both animals being murdered and humans eating poisoned food)” … and with that justification we keep up the aggressive approach. But it gets us nowhere.
The subject (veganism) is a tricky one to handle. When we speak too passionately, especially with a whiff of aggression about us, it puts people off. And because ‘animal matters’ have to be explained in serious tones (necessarily, it’s a very dark subject) this makes the whole matter “unattractive”; it has an inbuilt yuk factor. Without trying too hard, omnivores can easily dislike a “vegan”. It often suits them to … but is that partly because of our own prickliness, our routine condemning, value judgements? It’s almost as if we dislike anyone who has the audacity to put up an opposite argument.

Vegans who have a loud look

In the past (owing to our small numbers) we’ve had to look stronger by being louder. Those who do protest sometimes seem pushy, even sour. Maybe this can be a symptom of inner aggro but, to be fair, it’s also us going out of our minds with anxiety over the horrendous things happening to animals. It especially drives us nuts that people (kind, intelligent, educated, economically comfortable people) don’t want to know about ANY of this.
But ours is a communication job, teaching not attacking. No need to sledge hammer information. We’ve all contributed to an unfortunate image and if our image is to change it will take time. But towards that. Just as we talk about people moving ‘towards vegan’ so we can talk to our selves about moving towards just telling. The truth, maybe in small enough doses to digest, has got to overcome a deeply entrenched animal-using lifestyle.
If we’re ‘animal advocating’ then our whole vegan lifestyle becomes that much more significant. No one can disagree. But is it exciting enough? That’s the problem. Can it jolt omnivores out of their trench.
Amongst hardened omnivores there’s still an “it’s-not-for-me” reaction. And that reaction means “I’m not ready to make that sort of commitment … at least not yet”.
For omnivores there are two off-putting perceptions about being vegan – what you eat and who you mix with. If a diet, for instance, is animal-rights-friendly it means unfamiliar foods. That’s one thing, okay, maybe one can deal with that but what are vegans like, as people? Could we mix with them? Can they be ‘aggro’ (of course always on behalf of the animals)?
The negative reaction to ‘vegan’ in the past might have no reason to change. Vegans may be seen as frightening or confusing. People may see us as “kind” to “animals” but if they spot any “aggro” in us that that contradicts the ‘kindness’ image … and then people get nervous about us. My point here is that it must be possible to look a whole lot less unfriendly without compromising anything we say.
Although they are absolutely valid, our ‘shouting protests’ may have had their day. Inside the omnivore head there’s an opinion already set, about “these sorts of things”. An image has already been inscribed on the tablets of the omnivore memory. To move people on, about the sort of people we are we may need a subtler approach to carry our message. We need to whet their appetite, and I don’t just mean with food but with all the other great benefits of our way of life.
When we shout at people (and I don’t mean in terms of volume!) we signal displeasure. We accuse. And in a free-willed, individualistic society, we start to look like oiks. “Good cause but ugly people”.
Each of us has to work out our own way of speaking strongly about what we believe without pointing the finger, personally. Maybe how we do that is not quite obvious, but to address this trickiness is to begin to deal with it, and eventually to succeed.

The Danger of Judgement

In the Animal Rights field, vegans have taken steps to stop using animal products and we feel proud of the major lifestyle change we’ve undertaken. But maybe we can get a bit “up ourselves” about it all.
We’ve taken up ‘veganism’ and found ourselves in a perfect position to criticise others who haven’t. By making value judgements about omnivores, we strengthen our own stand on important issues. But when it comes to using animals (food, clothing, experimentation) non-vegans think we’re all a bit “#@%**+#” (which just about covers every negative judgement of veganism!)
To the omnivore, a vegan’s diet, lifestyle and principles must appear ignoble; otherwise they’d be asking more questions, debating the subject, maybe even changing to a more ethical lifestyle! For vegans having made the jump, it’s different. The things we most worried about, now feel okay. The next problem on the list appears: There just aren’t that many vegans around yet, especially in rural areas or countries where “veganism” is unheard-of. A vegan not only needs company (other vegans preferably) but for all the best reasons wants to inspire others to have confidence in veganism.
This aim, at this moment, is wishful thinking. There just aren’t even enough people dipping their toes in the water, let alone committed and active. The numbers of (totally comfortable) vegans is not rapidly increasing! Perhaps that can be put down to “bad press”. But there’s another force working against us – Ourselves! The effect of our (vegans’) spectacular unattractiveness is in part due to our image - as morally judgemental people.

Passion plus

Sunday 8th August

Many people today are working for a cause they believe in. There are plenty to choose from. The pleasure palaces of old are being replaced by subtler pleasures, more closely connected with ‘global work’ or working for ‘the greater good’. Call it altruism if you like, but I predict these activities, as they become more attractive to people, will be the main driver of us all. They will be favourites, not so very different from any other passions which are characteristically self-motivated. Working at a passion is like not working at all.
Our main need though is to maintain our motivation when we are so used to the attractions of short-term remedies and the allure of the flesh pots. Can interest and passion be maintained when we’re dealing with potentials and dreams for the future?
Now, there’s a very interesting theory, that we create our own reality. If we’re streaming ahead into that wished-for reality we do it by dreaming it into existence first … and that can only happen when we drop ‘me’ motivation and draw on the energy potential of the ‘greater-good’. What we do might spread benefit and happiness but the altruism of it isn’t powered by righteousness – it’s distinctly different from the old fashioned morality of ‘doing good’. Vegans aren’t into goodness but involvement with their cause, the motivation for it is connected to an instinctive reality that exists alongside conventional reality. For better or worse, a vegan-world is a place where we’re deliberately de-emphasising ‘me’ and replacing it. By doing without it we settle for a truth so inspiring that we must run with it: a sober truth that might seem self-denying at first. It is that we humans don’t deserve rights per se, because we can’t be trusted with them. We can’t be trusted with privileges because we always abuse them out of ‘me’ interest. Humans can’t be trusted around animals because we can’t be trusted not to exploit them. The learning and the teaching of this is what drives vegans to work hard without much encouragement. This is ONE HUGE LESSON humanity is having to learn.
By lowering testosterone levels a bit and growing more affectionate with each other, by respecting our environment more, by tuning into empathy more, we have a strong driver. We see a self-motivated, personal power driven by self-perpetuating energy, and in that there’s hope … as long as what we’re doing is done for the greater good.
All this is not a bad exchange for the loss of one or two primitive sensations, giving up many non-essential foodstuffs like milks and chocolates and creams and meats and sea-foods and cheesy bits, and all the other ‘yummy-yummies’ in the food halls … oh, and the wools and silks and the leathers too. All these fripperies from past periods can be dropped, and in doing so we realise that we don’t have to follow orders any more (except our own!!), we’re more in charge of our own decision making. The results is in seeing the growth of ‘friendly’ business and the demise of unfriendly businesses. And soon enough, as veganism grows, the whole idea of ‘them’ being in any sort of business at all will seem ludicrous.

Motivation

The best motivation doesn’t come from ‘me’ interests or even from the arts (unless there’s a strong element of the ‘greater-good’ there), it’s from a steadiness of intent to construct. That requires motivation.
It starts with intent. And this intent, if outward looking, has to NOT exclude certain responsibilities (ouch! That word) but to IN-clude repair. There’s still a lot or deep damage to be fixed. The greatest art can up-lift and the wildest ‘me’ ambitions can inspire (look at Richard Branson) but today the old lusts are dying out. New ones coming along … ‘me’-ing is fading … we’re finding a need for ‘greater’ motivation. Meaning supercedes the chase for money, fame or beauty. Significance is today’s central focus.
Put it this way, if there’s a road accident and the doctor’s passing by and stops to look, she’s not smelling the flowers, she’s staunching blood. So it is with us today. We aren’t much good for anything if we just stare in shock. We should be checking the bag. “What will do the trick?”, “What have I got to do?”, “What’s needed here?” … and rummaging through your doctor’s bag, at the bottom you find your motivation – just what you need to achieve something significant. If we do choose to help “stopping the bleeding” if we go for ‘healing’ as one of our prime motivations, the doctor in us may stop to smell the rose before moving on, to see what needs doing. The rose and the blood are our motivation (raison d’etre) and the blood does seem significant, not something any of us can inore.
So life is only to do with staunching bleeding but finding significance and meaning in our ‘greater-good’ activities. By motivating ourselves in the ‘healing crafts’ (addressing the-need-for-repair) there’s meaning. Meaning passes through chaos to reach motivation which brings us to the ultimate privilege of being able to contribute, etc … towards the next stage of ‘unravelling’ for the human race.

Me

Friday 6th August 2010

We know there are destructive forces about the place, especially the humans with the big brains. Their destructiveness is the outcome of their quest for the ‘me’ advantage, in everything. I live near a small park right on the harbour, a more attractive spot you couldn’t imagine (nor a more expensive area to rent in). The me-people want to build a fifty boat marina, on the water there; they speak of the march of ‘progress’! Unfortunately for us who live here there’ll be no more ‘harbour views’ but you’ll still be able to see water between the hulls.
It seems everyone has their own story here, about the ravages of ‘progress’. So, what can we do about it? Why bother standing in the way of the great juggernaut? Why not just sit back and let it happen? Or why not fight back? Revolution, fighting, military … but that passion translated into fisticuffs has been tried and seen to fail. It’s so twentieth century.
Amongst the rebels, activists, changers, liberals, revolutionaries and general non-conformists, there’s a variety of passionate beliefs. But even within such a seemingly altruistic army there’s always the ‘me’ factor, the wanting to raise our own selves above the general level. It’s that much more obvious in the nakedly, truly psychopathic who’re so obviously self-obsessed, but it needs to be said that all of us have these brains focused on self benefit. ‘Me’.
We are our own cause, dressed in some identity acceptable to ourselves. We protest. But if we’re a tad too narrow, not strong enough in our ‘macro-view’, it’s our ‘me’ holding us back. If we want to fail in our protesting, the micro-me will hold us below our fighting-back point.
The weakening of human fight-back shows the success of propaganda. Eroding waves and generations of collective power sapped by the Animal Industries. We don’t know yet what damage they’ve done but we guess it’s enormous at least. They’ve compromised their customers’ health, they’re responsible for the diabolical conditions millions of individuals live in, and that’s just the beginning of a long list. It’s how they built their power. And it’s our own power we need to recognise. To see our huge individual powers divested not for the ‘me’ but for the so called ‘greater good’. In the end it might be one’s ability to touch or heal or speak or paint or sing or parent - whatever is our own power centre it’s found in rebelling. And that draws its power from the significance of what we do. The one thing missing from the animal exploiters power presentation is significance. I mean significance in terms of the greater good.

You might as well be speaking Martian

The language omnivores understand can be (a bit unfairly) compared to the baby talk we use with cats and dogs; they know our general thrust but basically haven’t a clue what we’re on about. Their progress in life depends on leaving the gaping holes and dark corners ignored. What characterises the omnivore is their stop-start nature, twiddling some knobs too much and leaving others completely un-twiddled, those which are too stiff to turn. Consequently they are forever disarmed and unable to defend their values – because they can’t take on this huge problem of condoning what is insupportable concerning their animal foods and the treatment of food animals. All they can do is remain silent on the issue. It’s like the ridiculous situation of not speaking the language in a foreign country.
In contrast vegans have dealt with this by diving in deep, cleaning up their act and sticking to principle. With a quick squirt of vegan principle you can unstiffen even the tightest knob; vegans have addressed broader habit changes that advantage both the personal and the planet. That’s the positive side of vegan change.
The negative side may be that neither omnivores nor vegans can escape our own innate violence. Sure, vegans don’t do animal violence, it’s the big one we eschew, but we have our own little violences. As compensation for no longer eating and using animals we might like to indulge in attacking omnivores, by value judging. We judge others so that we don’t have to judge ourselves too closely. Our focus is on omnivores – we want to shake them. We want to shout at them, as we would naughty children. We curse their arrogance, their complicity with the violent animal industries. And yet we know we mustn’t do this because it’s so obvious, so judgemental and so ineffective. The predominant culture is strong and we’re few in number. We don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of reaching omnivores this way.
If we can’t stop judging the people we disapprove of, if we continue to judge their values, our aim of liberating animals will fall wide of the mark. I’m assuming of course that we genuinely do want this and we’re not just looking for an excuse for omnivore-bashing. One step forward two steps back. Vegans need to stop disliking people who don’t yet understand the language we speak.

World goes affectionate

Do you think a vegan world is unlikely? Maybe it is, unless you use magic, to enchant the vast collective mind … the magic being affection.
If vegans do (what they do) with affection, if they show it in their tone of voice, words and body language, they can be as confronting as they want to be and magically it won’t feel like confrontation, due to the absence of threat or personal judgement. No problem about using strong words … if they’re gently put.
Our struggles with the ‘demon-omnivore’ needn’t exist. If we want to be instructive, then be pleasant about it. Polite, but not strictly polite, just warm and firm like a well fitted glove. We aren’t here to lecture but to help; not to say “me right: you wrong” or “look at this cruelty or that horror”, it’s to make the subject less frightening and more approachable. No one likes HAVING to admit what they eat (with its connection to animal treatment); free-willed adults don’t take kindly to being harangued and have ways of ganging up on aggressive advocates. But that doesn’t mean they don’t want to know. If they want our help, our hands are supposed to be warm to hold. Ours is a privileged position. We don’t need weaponry but we do need to offer a guiding hand.
Vegans say be affectionate towards animals, help them don’t eat them – it’s an appealing message. It will resonate with people, if they feel free to resonate; they don’t want to feel like a rat in a corner, morally compelled to comply with instructions issues by the Central Vegan Committee. We must be the sort of people they can’t identify with, not be easily disliked.
Vegans, who aim to protect animals, should also aim to protect omnivores. However we see them they are to us, in truth, children. If that sounds insulting it’s not meant to be, but in terms of their level of unawareness along with their suicidal diets, omnivores need protecting.
If they see us strongly liking them (even though they eat ‘our friends’) they’re more likely to hear us out. If they seem a bit twitchy I’d suggest it’s the awful reputation vegans have built for themselves, for savaging their opponents. It’s also because animal advocates have sometimes not even been vegan themselves, and how ridiculous is that! Our job is to show them we aren’t like that; that we are completely committed vegan boycotters and that we are fair-minded and imaginative about the difficulties some omnivores are experiencing taking in our message.
It’s only natural that they’ll react negatively to us if we’re pontificating or being accusing, or if we’re sounding righteous or threatening or shrill. Without affection vegans are just value judging. If we’re affectionate we’re offering a plate of sandwiches – “Try a vegan approach, if only because it’s going to happen anyway”.
Affection eases us into a vegan view of our world, if anything (once the penny drops) a little too rapidly. From our point of view, we hard-done-by vegan advocates and for earlier vegans, we’ve pushed the idea up hill, now it’s time to let it run down hill. Aggro veggoes always look a bit desperate.

On a roll

If we have to wear the costume of the weak pacifist, until people see us otherwise, we may suffer for that, but to put things into perspective, really, we don’t know we’re born! We, vegan or omnivore, know nothing of suffering compared with slaves, animals. We’ll never have to suffer like they do, we never need to think of anything other than the animals. What better thing could we be doing than trying to protect them rather than ourselves?
If humans on this planet (the only planet we know) have intellectual advantage over other life forms, then what’s to infer from that? Surely that humans are guardians not exploiters, that we’re plant eaters and naturally vegan. We’re here only to display our strength of character. Woo! That sounds a bit pompous, but what else can we use to make a break through?

No umbrage taken

Blog 800
Our fellows (perhaps almost all humans!) denigrate the practical application of non-violence (for obvious reasons). Overall they see it as a weakness (big insult to vegans!!). This is where vegans need to be super tolerant, even of the silliest attitudes. Where a bit of extra humanity is called for.
The befriending of people with opposite attitudes is hard for us; they eat what we don’t eat, wear what we don’t wear and they have an attitude about animal-use that we don’t share . That covers a lot of ground. How are they going to view us, setting an example for them? In order to protect themselves they have to oppose us. How do we deal with this?
If they see us as whingeing, tree hugging, pacifist, lettuce-eating, bleeding-hearts, then we get offended. Of course we know it’s all spin but it hurts. The trick is not to show it, then not even feel it. It’s not ordinary people’s faults that they think this way. They’ve been got at and we have too. We’ve been done like a dinner by the professionals employed in the ‘maligning’ department of the Animal Industry. We’ve been sold to a gullible public as weaklings.
That information outlet, through its allied business branches (comprising every vested interest, from abattoir to grocery, each has an interest in planting images of us; we who’d have them OUT of business in a flash, given half the chance. Potentially for them we are enemy, thankfully still small in number.
We, as vegans, have to deal with their spin on us. We have to see it as part of the rough and tumble of being a vegan activist.
If we can cope with their denigration we can cope with anything. They may be many but their hold is weak. Our only job here is to make sure we’re strong with what we say, disprove their arguments and disabuse them of our false reputation. We can do that best by our bearing, but also by showing off a bit … just for the entertainment value, you understand.
By deliberately withstanding the ice in people’s attitudes (whether they relate to us or to animals) we show we have nerves of steel. If we can hold them for one brief moment, if we can keep our nerve, they might come round … mainly because they’ll see us as real people (as distinct from rabbits). And what if they don’t? Well on one level it doesn’t matter, because before anything can move on anyway we all need to know where we stand with each other.
Once we can declare our principles everything else slots neatly into place - issues bring up attitudes and these square off with our own need to be loved and respected by others. A struggle between global issues and personal image, which would be just fine if we humans hadn’t gone overboard on image lately. We’ve veered to one side (allowing all sorts of cruel and destructive things to go unnoticed) and we are presently readjusting our focus. It’s just that recently, our thirst to outdo the competition and the need to be approved of by others has swept us away. It’s blown us into the hands of ‘the bastards’. The producer: we consumer.
The humans, as a race of individuals (acting co-operatively), would only need to look outwards at the greater good to become less attached to climbing social ladders. If these ladders go nowhere it’s because they aren’t relevant to today’s issues, most of which need urgent action. Social standing may be important but it fades to nothing compared to issues concerning the very survival of our society, our species and our planet.
Before anything can move on we must fix up the mess on the floor. The damage caused by misinformation and money-grabbing has made life into a race for advantage. It’s like the pyramid-selling scam always ending in tears. Unless we turn it around, co-operating instead of competing, things can only get worse.
We’ve accepted some bad advice. Our punctured membrane needs repair, before we can move on. For vegans, who’ve done massive repairs already, everything can be a downhill-run, an enjoyment of love-generated, motivationally-inspired, enthusiastic, passionate, life-sacrificing energy. In fact it can be enjoyable, this repairing, if only because it promises to expand our energy exponentially, on a self-perpetuating basis. “The more you put in the more you get out”.
Ah, yes, this is what dreams are made of, made for, but we’ve got more than dreams going on here. Once we use this self-perpetuating machine (this balanced selfish-unselfish principle of real altruism) wemust take care not to slip on our own self-aggrandisement.
Idealism, motivated by love, may be good for vegans who love animals, but it applies just as well to anyone who is primarily motivated to be protective.
With this in mind, “protecting”, we can concentrate on the work in hand. And that way we’ll be far too busy to obsess about our image or our political progress or the state of our (compassion-driven) enlightenment. We’ll be quite content to act simply as a service. We are, after all, nothing more than ordinary people who’re enjoying taking the piss out of omnivores.
On a more serious note, to end this blog, I think most of us love the voluntary nature of our ‘work’. The work for vegans is to impart information. We aren’t here to restore our image or listen to wagging tongues and we’re certainly not here to take umbrage!!

Don’t ya luv voluntary?

It’s 2 a.m. the baby is crying. What do we think? It’s the middle of the night. What stops me striking the baby, to stop it screaming? What stops me imposing a fear-regime from the outset, at the earliest point in the child’s life? Perhaps the coming ‘relationship with the child’.
To the woken parent, who is longing for the baby to stop crying, this feels like adversity, an unwelcome intrusion into the night. Whatever form adversity takes, illness, toothache, grief, etc, we just want it gone, to be NOT THERE.
So, the question is, how do we deal with adversity without having any kill-thoughts and without ‘striking at the source’? How does a non-violent response work better than the other way? How do we act both freely and strongly at the same time?
Maybe it’s often just another hill to climb and NOT actually a problem at all. If we accept adversity, don’t fight it, respect it, learn from it, then it will pass … that is if ‘the bastards’ aren’t behind it.
We fear being enslaved to the ‘adversity-makers’. Whether real of imaginary, these ‘bastards’ live off misery, and hopefully not MY misery. Today we often feel unfree, as though controlled by outside forces, as though Adversity seeks us to strike at us. Maybe it’s inner forces which threaten. The inculcated “fear and retribution for sins committed”, etc. However fear forms we do all hate force imposed. Wherever it comes from, force is uncomfortable and yet it’s part of the human experience. I’m forced to get up in the morning, to get up, get out there and earn a living. Unless I had to go to work would I? I’m forced by circumstance to go to work, to live. Or if I’m ill I’m ‘forced’ to do something about it. But where else are we accepting of force? Nowhere else, I’d suggest. We should assiduously resist all other force. It’s bad for us, for adults especially.
It’s quite a thought isn’t it, that everything (other than paid work and avoiding death) could be taken on board voluntarily. We do things better when we NOT forced. I think of all those animal, environmental and humanist activists having the time of their lives, working like demons but loving it, slaving away for the needs of others. In almost every situation, if we are voluntary, we should create ‘free space’ and appreciate it. All the better for stepping up to adversity and dealing with it, before it enlarges itself. This may look like courage holding hands with gratitude, but it’s a potent approach to adversity. In fact Adversity may be the driving force in life. It creates the tension which is the essence of life-force. And we are inheritors of that force bounded by the vast consciousness humans are blessed with. This is why we should be ever paying back for what we’ve been given. Being “thankful for one’s lot even if, at the time, it don’t seem a lot”. Even if ‘ain’t a lot’.
If we can accept our role here, even though not fully understood at the time, accept it even if it’s a self-allotted role, surely we’re already in a good position to take the knocks on the chin rather than getting demoralised by them. Is this acting preventatively or acting voluntarily? I think it amounts to much the same thing.
Take how we feel about our partner, maybe our ‘marriage’ partner, as an example. We promise to accept them “for better or worse” (there’s a bit of adversity threat here!) That could turn out to be a lifetime love affair, a soul mate situation or the opposite. This might be a time to accept and be grateful to experience union possibly for life. It’s a huge risk to accept, but a huger risk not to. To voluntarily take another person into one’s life and for it to work, isn’t that the sort of contract we reckon we could commit to? The potential for such a union (to produce a child or a free life where things are voluntarily done) - wouldn’t most of us have that if we had the chance?
Or is there a horror here of NOT being free? Compulsion, force, remaining in a union when you could be flying solo?
Is there a deeper instinct, ace trump, which outweighs even the advantage of solo flying? That instinct makes a union stick; able to break through adversity and arrive at … well whatever life has in store for us. That’s partnership. But it’s also what everyone has, a partnership with life. Aren’t we all just a little bit married to Nature? Ideally most people would like to experience a love affair with life, right up till it’s time to ‘leave’. It may be a wild dream for most of us but wouldn’t we all jump at the chance of it? Not just for the warm and fuzzies but because it’s gloriously NOT compulsory, NOT imposed. NO force.
Being voluntary means not needing to be told what to do. It doesn’t mean lazy because that can’t exist when there’s such an easy solution to motivation. Vegans struggle with motivation and keeping up the passion. Wouldn’t most of us get down faced with the implacability of opposition we vegans have to deal with all the time? But if we can be entirely self-motivated, have high enough energy levels to enthusiastically do things just out of ‘loeuve’, we’d personify the volunteer spirit. Yes, I mean “out of love”, that energy which runs the whole caboodle, universe, everything, and it comes directly out of being in love with life.
Voluntary Pursuits. It’s a wonder they don’t run a degree course on it at university. The high art of dodging the bastards whilst acting in keeping with non-violence. This high art would incorporate artfulness (that of The Dodger) with all the energy of passion itself (like that of Mr Fagin). Life could be one long self perpetuating energy (along the lines of ‘the more you put in the more you get out’).
Animal activists deal with vital matters, as volunteers. On love,

Humanity training

Saturday 31st July

Back (meanwhile) at the ranch it’s 2 a.m. You are asleep, maybe dreaming. At rest. At peace. Then it’s war.
Sirens sound. One’s beloved (momentarily, expletive deleted) baby is caterwauling. You’re up for the umpteenth time tonight – energywise it’s ‘gross’. Yes, go for it. All the expletives ... following which comes contemplation of one’s misfortune … the trap of having kids. The crying child gets the blame. But what’s to blame anyway? Nothing has actually gone WRONG. It’s just that, at 2 am, we’re feeling pissed off and speculating negatively about waking half the neighbourhood and the dangerous feelings of “being trapped”. This doesn’t help things run smoother at 2 am.
Here I am, standing in a dark room in the middle of the night, entertaining dangerous thoughts about ‘misfortune’. It’s 2 am and I should be asleep (or rather, down the road getting pissed at Jake’s party). Here I am with the f*****g baby crying. This feels like adversity.
And then it suddenly changes. It’s something else. The baby dropped off, you went back to bed. It’s all done and dusted for another night and another notch carved into the stick measuring your relationship to the child. By such situations we come closer to the ‘fait accompli’ of life.
I may be wide of the mark, not being a parent myself, but I’m trying to get to how we can all feel at times, about ‘my-bad-luck-in-life’, this sense of adversity-at-the-time. Yes, it clears up later perhaps but it feels very heavy at the time. Like bad weather when you can not see a sunny day ever coming again. When adversity visits us, how do we deal with it?
Picture the scene. The baby wakes up crying. You get up from a warm bed and face the work of the day, or in this case ‘night’. What happens then? A silver cloud of parental tolerance descends and magically transforms bad temper into radiant ‘humanity’ … and oh! Lucky are they, with children, who enjoy this exquisite pleasure every night and meet adversity with a cheerful smile. Nah! Of course it’s not like this. (Not always anyway!) But it seems to me that it’s right here, in this instance, where we most feel and suffer and enjoy the cutting edge of life. This is when we get pissed off most but learn ‘the humanity’ most too. When the baby continues to scream louder and louder, destroying the serenity of the night, extremes of toleration are tested. So, what’s the significance here, especially to vegans?
Perhaps these sorts of ‘crises’ simply bring us back to reality. For vegans, that we live amongst omnivores; for parents of small kids, that they live with a crying baby. We surround ourselves with testing situations, each one a launch pad for making humanity-training missions. (All this happens so routinely it hardly needs identifying). Each situation (at 2 am with child) forges the altruistic relationship-to-come, between child and parent, between loved and beloved. Tolerance (even under very trying circumstances!!) is ‘humanity’ teaching us.
Getting back to veganism, tolerating the ‘screaming child of the omnivore world’, never giving up on it, never leaving it behind even when noisy or smelly - that’s reality, that’s humanity training. We need to make many missions, many hours have to be put in. For vegans it’s a specific type of training we need to do – to train ourselves never to forget, even momentarily, our humanity towards both animals and omnivores.