When things go wrong amongst friends

881: 

You know how it feels? You’re having a chat with a friend, and then, ‘BANG’, out of the blue, the atmosphere changes. I’ve touched on a raw nerve, perhaps. When I said “I’m vegan”, things changed. It’s as if a gun has been pulled during a fist fight. First priority might be to explain about being vegan, but maybe, right here and now, it’s not timely to start boasting. Maybe it’s best to do whatever we can to keep our friends on a friendly footing.

Perhaps when I tell you, “I’m vegan”, it doesn’t cause a stir. Not these days. Vegans aren’t that rare a species any more. But friends, the preciousness of friends must be considered, they are our lifeblood. I’ve lost a few, regrettably. If you have any good friends, some who like you, these same friends might be reluctant to discuss all this ‘animal’ stuff with you. They’ll think it’s ‘too close to the flames’. My own friends often suspect what I’m up to. They suspect, given the slightest excuse, that I’ll put the hard word on them. Imagine what does to friendships?

When they see me, I can imagine my omnivore friends thinking panic, foreseeing what I might say to embarrass them.  I try to pre-empt that, and now, these days, I find myself quite automatically steering my conversations side-ways. Just by their knowing me (as a vegan) I’ve already dropped my cluster bomb. I don’t always want to be associated with that. Sometimes it’s time to move on, to unrelated topics, when chatting with friends. And if a green light comes up, if the conversational-climate is right, I’ll talk about it, just as enthusiastically as a football fan will rave about the Match.

But last time we were together, I remember we were talking, and then hit a sticking point, a moment of embarrassment. I’d been passionately talking-down the use-of-animals ... and ‘BANG’ ... and then I remember I was back-pedalling like crazy, steering away purposely, with an intention to edge back later.

All this conscious and subconscious ducking and weaving is okay of course, it need be nothing more than a normal part of a conversation. It’s the same between friends, all over the world. It’s a dance of permission, between two or more people, allowing some things to be spoken about and others less so. There’s a whole accompanying language of signals and signs, showing if things have gone too far, or too quickly. It might seem subtle and yet we all do it all the time. We manoeuvre like this whenever we talk, especially when talking on a serious subject like this. Particularly when all arguments are highly contentious.

You and I are having this chat, it goes towards the animal-thing, and then, just as suddenly, I’m changing the subject, and you notice this, and later notice how I’ve craftily slid back to the topic, having been busily watching you all the time for permission to do just that. The animal-thing. It’s a subject for vegans which, for some of us, might seem to be the only subject worth talking about. To that end, I have devised all sorts of complex tactics. But, do they work? Am I trying to be too clever by half? Am I obvious?

Here we are, having a chat, and each attempting to out-manoeuvre the other. Nothing to get alarmed about. It’s just social intercourse taking place. But vegans always have an agenda. And we think we’re pretty crafty (catching y‎ou out, by doing the opposite of what’s expected). Are we winning the out-witting battle? Perhaps not. Our tactics stick out like sore thumbs. It’s all too easy to see through us. The omnivore (all of us in fact) is used to all approaches, whether it be the Jehovah’s Witness knocking on the door or professional salesman on TV ads. They’re wary of proselytizers. The omnivore is smart enough to spot us.

Avoiding self defence

882: 

It’s easy to be gung-ho about being vegan, about taking the right course in life and being able to answer questions about nutrition and ethics and environment without hesitation. But if we are going to give answers we have to do it without shooting ourselves in the foot, without losing the listener. We’re in the advantaged position; we don’t need to exploit that. We know we can always hold our ground, whereas non-vegans don’t feel the same sort of confidence. And yet wanting to make some sort of response, they often speak before they think, and get panicked into aggression. Vegans are used to the no-brainers omnivores use to get out of a sticky argument. It’s vital that we don’t take offence; however we’re spoken to it’s water off a duck’s back, because:

1. We appreciate that they’re in a tight spot and don’t necessarily mean what they say, and

2. We know we always have a solid answer, held back sometimes, when things start getting aggressive.

Vegans have no trouble holding their own. That is, until the knuckle dusters come out, and then it’s best to run like hell!

Pure zen

881:

Before any of us reach communication-savvy, we have to know that we can deal with flak. Criticisms should never be too hard to handle. Think ‘stage survival’, for stand-up comics, who are heckled every night on stage. I think their tactic can be ours too. They show the opposite of what’s expected. They’re never too shocked by criticism, and instead, so the theory goes, they turn it to their own advantage

Which brings me to a useful tool in the vegan tool box - self-deprecation. It prevents the ego wanting to be right all the time. Zen humour makes it okay to be wrong.  Even if our adversaries rubbish our most ‘robust principles’, especially if they do, there’s always an advantage in it for us. We know they have no ethical arguments to support their dependency on animals, and we know that most of them haven’t thought deeply about it anyway.

As we wait, for their side of things to be as vehemently defended as ours oppositely is, we wait in vain. All we get from them is sloppy arguments. What else can they say? It’s thinly disguised defensiveness. After they start defending themselves, you can expect bugger-all constructive dialogue!!

So, what can you do about it? Well, I think it best, prior to their going on the defensive, to hold back; the time isn’t necessarily right to push things through too completely, not at this stage anyway. They know (they being in the vast majority) that they have a right not to listen. For our part, we make it clear we’re not expecting any comment on what we say.

Here’s my advice: Once we’ve said something powerful, get away from it, go somewhere else in the conversation, change the subject. By not trying (and being seen not to try) to pursue the line of debate, we’re obviously going easy on the heavy-talk. If you were building a wall, you’d sometimes need to stop, to leave space for a doorway. It’s the same with this sort of “serious” conversation. We need to create space.

We’ve dropped our ‘bomb’ for them, to consider the pros and cons and they may take their time considering. It may take a whole lifetime, or maybe in the blink of an eye. By our not expecting a response, and taking charge of  ‘changing the subject’ in the conversation, manoeuvring can happen so fast that it’s best to be prepared. My main rule-of-thumb is to give them the chance to make a response whilst making sure they know I don’t expect any. If I can show all that, they’ll feel safe with me. I could (and probably will) go on about this some more, but for now, in a nutshell:

What I, as a wannabe vegan communicator, need to develop most of all is unselfconsciousness-of-approach. I think, with such powerful weaponry-of-argument, we can sometimes feel too confident. We can come across as too frightening. The most unselfconscious and spontaneous approach is the least scary, the most zen!

How vegans are bringing things to the public’s attention

880:

We try to act as advocates and ambassadors for animals who can’t represent themselves, we’re activists up against many adversaries. However friendly we are or they are to us, we are few and they are many. So, our first job is to better understand what we’re up against, and then find a subtler approach than haranguing them. A fairer, less judgemental approach is by attempting to engage them in dialogue. A few rules might include that we speak calmly (no threat of any emotional exploding), that we drop the slogans and clichés (which bore people) and get information across in an undramatised way (ideally, unselfconsciously). The risk is, that speaking about animals with omnivores is always going to put them on the back foot, and they know that immediately we start down that path.

            So here we are. You and I are having a little chat. I’m being super-aware of where we’re at in our conversation. I’m avoiding being too smart or too right, and not eager to hit you with my coup de grace answer. I’m not trying to corner my opponent because, one way or another, that will close down the dialogue.

We have strong moral arguments, and no one likes being confronted over their morals, so if we apply too much moral pressure, it’s likely things will destabilise and our chat will turn ugly. We have other arguments too. But lately, the previously widely accepted health dangers of animal-based foods has been called into question. People will rejoice at this and be all too ready to say animal food is okay. Always there have been solid arguments in praise of eating meat which have served to divert emphasis on the ethical. Environmentally too, we have strong arguments to suggest that animal farming pollutes and encourages deforestation, but again, discussion centred on this diverts us away from the main issue, that of the unethical treatment of ‘food’ animals. The moral angle is sensitive, and for good reason. The cruelty, the lack of empathy for animals, should be, we argue, second nature to all humans. And it so obviously isn’t.

A friend has come up with another important point here: He says that we should confine our arguments to a single track. If we have a two track argument (Ethics and Health, and we could add to this ‘Environment’) it's possible that that one ‘track’ might be perceived by the listener to be wrong (For example: the latest scientific questioning of the dangers of cholesterol). Then, even if the other (Ethics) track is right, or something of which the listener could be persuaded, the wrongness of the other half of The Message will have caused the listener to stop listening.

Which is all the more reason why listening, you to me, me to you, is what this is all about. I need to show that by conversing with you, that I’ll give you signals all the time that I am listening-with-respect. Not necessarily agreeing but while you are talking I am considering. This is about my fairness. How utterly prime fairness is in the art of listening, of never letting one’s own agenda hurry or worry the listener in their aim to be attracting OUR attention.

My aim would be to bring up issues without necessarily resolving them. It would be to encourage the conversation to range as broadly as possible, letting it go where it will, letting ourselves be unselfconscious. I’d be reminding myself not to keep showing my hand (which immediately confronts).

Dialogue is discussion-about, not fight-over. Because this subject is so emotionally charged, as soon as the matter of animal rights arises, I expect you to feel alarm and caution. Dialogue, being a two way road, means that my creative-approach involves listening and only some (not too much) passing of information across. If our adversaries either have an opportunity to speak or are assured of equal space for speaking, then whatever I have to say won’t just be a moral statement, but part of a much larger exercise, made up of a few self-challenging statements, self deprecations, along with some interesting ideas and some mention of the part ethics plays in developing empathy.

Whatever it is, conversion it is not. Nor is it any form of recruiting-for-the-cause. No hint of that. If this delicate balance-of-communication is to be achieved, then it’s down to our own personal technique - practise makes perfect. Ultimately, we talk as unselfconsciously as possible, without making one’s ‘adversary’ go onto the defensive.

Once on the defensive they will have no further interest in talking. We aren’t begging people to listen to what we have to say. We want them to come half way, to want to know. I think if you’re vegan you should allow yourself to hold back, not just in what is said, but to hold back on predictability; if we are perceived (and I think we are already) as potentially boring people, then a little inscrutability makes a lot of difference. 

Scale

879: 

Because this is such a big subject, any move towards it requires careful consideration, and that whole process can’t be hurried. Each individual who considers this course of action immediately sees what they’re up against, what all vegans are up against - a huge weight of public opinion. The collective mind is set, on using animals. From birth, we are wrapped in the warmth of normality. Wrapped to the extent that we don’t want to make waves. And as for radical lifestyle changes which are so far away from the normal, like not eating animal products. That would be both radical and very un-normal

A vegan is an agent of change. For us, to grasp the scale of the problem: where attitude is locked, diet can’t change without doing psychological self-harm and empathy is in short supply amongst many billions of humans. The problem is how to shift that. How to stop support for abattoirs and how to do it as a matter of urgency. Omnivores need to change. Enough said. But now I come to how vegans should change, but in the next blog.

Either keep them guessing or hold back

878: 

+It’s Sunday, here in Sydney, but still Saturday when and where this blog is posted

I watched a memorable TV programme yesterday. Did you see it? Catalyst, ABCTV. A reputable science programme announces the latest research, blowing the cholesterol thing out of the water. It was ALL a big mistake.

            There were flaws in the initial research, showing the causator, of coronary heart disease, was cholesterol. Now cholesterol is given a clean bill of health, and saturated fats are now okay. Eggs, cheese and butter have the green light. Meat too. So, let’s feel free to get into the animals, big time.

            Our talk of omnivores being “doomed to heart attacks while vegans are protected by their no-cholesterol diet” might then be flawed too. And so what of this? This ‘too-goo-to-be-true’ nutritional argument to be taken down a notch? Perhaps that’s not such a bad thing, since vegan animal rights has long been highjacked by vegan diet healthiness. Now, at least, we might stop wagging our fear-finger at people, and instead focus on the ethical dangers we face.

            By condoning suffering (by what we eat) we block something important in us. Maybe not as straightforward as cholesterol blocking arteries, if it did in fact do that. The block is in the conscience, like an erstewhile-demonised cholesterol-lump. The stress of it disturbs such delicate machinery as the circulatory and coronary systems, and a lot else besides; stress is IN the very food we eat, if it’s animal-based

Continuing from yesterday’s blog

The thinking behind veganism hasn’t been faulted up to now. If there’d been any flaws they’d have shown up over the past 70 years, since its inception. It seems that the vegan diet is entirely robust. So, too, the compassion that lies behind it. Ethics and diet are each unarguable, which means that vegans can be largely fearless, the big things having been dealt with - we have fewer tummy-troubles and fewer conscience-troubles. If that is so, then vegans should be able to tough it out when things get rough, as in fielding hostility, when issues are raised concerning the ‘use of animals’.

Fear of being wrong, and defending one’s ‘wrong’ position, is something vegans don’t have to do. We don’t have to be right and don’t have to look for a fight. Whereas non-vegans, more nervous about exposing their views, have to adopt a more ‘hit-out’ way of defending their attitudes. They’re faced with a strong moral position, which is their problem, whereas my problem is different. My biggest mistake has always been to set Morality up against an omnivore’s fear of ‘being wrong’ or being dispassionate. My mistake was to use the unproductive Moral Brigade, which is like enforcing cannon law to stop teenagers wanting sex. The very weight of collective consciousness (aka normal behaviour) simply ignores it all; all the vegan words and moralities about ‘chickens in cages’ lets them get away with highly disputable comments, like “There are more important things to think about”, how many times  I’ve heard that! In other words, the vast majority (the populous), will not be moralised-to.

Because it’s pointless, to force a taboo, bludgeoning people with ‘shocking-facts’ might make a person sit up and listen, but it won’t turn them vegan. Moral awareness doesn’t allow us to exert moral pressure. Persuasion is off limits as far as I’m concerned, since that approach has outlived its usefulness. In its place we must search for a fuller understanding of our adversaries and take a subtler approach towards them. Then we might finds ways to talk together. This is much more long-lasting way of explaining ‘vegan’. It requires patience and we have to go by the longer route.

Do we have time for all this? The freeing of pigs from their pens seems very urgent. Surely, we need a short, sharp and urgent fix-up. But what realistically can we achieve so quickly? Probably nothing long-lasting for the animals or their liberation.

The last age and this age

877: 

Imagine if vegan food really did let you think faster, by relieving the mind of guilt and giving you a sense of hope. I suppose, being vegan means you don’t have to be afraid of who you are. You don’t have to fear doom, for eating animals. Plus, and perhaps for the first time as adults, we can look forward to less ill health. This is the relieving of the weight of guilt, along with the spiritual failure of it all, and even to thinking of the animals cursing us for what we’ve done.

            Vegan food stops you being addicted to crap foods. Pass the cake shop, leave it alone. Pass up the crab croquettes, the Black Magic chocolates, the cream on fresh figs. Such memories, and such temptations, but far worse to feel that you are nothing more than a slave to your own tastebuds and worse, that you are a slave of convention. Take note of the amount of participation in violence and all the paraphernalia of violence. It seeps into our relationship and attitudes. It leaks most regularly into our food. getting what we want by force. This model of human-the-aggressor, the constant aggressor, we cling to, as if there can be no other way!

            Thankfully we are coming to the end of an age where violence is still appropriate. Twentieth century-think is ‘on the nose’. It’s likely that we’re near to ending the relevance of violence. The brainy kids of today are finding less destructive ways of intercours-ing. They’re talking amongst themselves. And, with them, they strut their different-opinions without causing nosebleeds.

            Vegans need to set the example here - our own dissociation with violence should start by our not going around hating carnivores. We need to talk to meat-eaters, and since there are so many of them we’ve got a lot to talk to. And talk about. And yes, we have our work cut out, establishing rights for animals. Here, it’s scale that is relevant - the vegan ‘suggestion’ is of David and Goliath proportions. And we, being part of the collective consciousness, whether vegan or not, think of the liberating of animals as a task. Hard work. And it might seem to drain our energy. Vegans need to set the example, not just about food, not just about behaviour, but also about this ‘D & G’ thing. The overwhelming odds seem to bring us out in a rash. But surely, if we can get past that, take energy FROM the work, then we don’t get exhausted at all, well certainly not in just thinking about it, anyway. It’s not to be daunted by the apparent forces against us.

            The Animal Industry, its abattoirs and its advertising, it thrives very nicely. Even though their influence is lessening (who hasn’t got a vegetarian mate these days?) But, our society is facing a choice - either we recognise the scientific evidence about plant-based foods or we continue clinging to a superseded means of making energy for ourselves and, in the process, violate huge numbers of animals. Remaining as an omnivore these days is rather like laying an unnecessarily heavy carbon footprint on ourselves, and not really caring much about it either.

The vegan brain

876: 

On a self-interested level, just by being vegan, you worry far less about illness. Good body health is one thing to look forward to, but perhaps even more important is the prospect of good mental health. When you move towards living as a vegan, you have to re-think many things; some you have to, others you can. For a start, you move into a different kitchen. Reinventing meals makes you more creative. And by being more creative, life expands, and time’s spent differently, and there’s raison d’être.

            It’s like having a new brain, going vegan. It begs to be used. The whole food regime is new, shopping is changed, and now there’s time spent on activism. From “What can I do?” we get to “What next?” Ethical restrictions are not there any more, opening up the chance to be future-building. It’s all very creative, and perhaps for the first time in one’s life, there’s a whiff of optimism in the air. There’s a thin line of possibility and hope in sight, despite the impossible odds against us.

            As soon as I was okay about being vegan, I felt purposeful. The pulling of one thread leads to the coming-together of so many allied threads. Problems are seen in a new context, so that now there’s something important to think about and be creative about. ‘Freeing the Slaves’ - it’s essential for them. But for me too -that goal has meant a lot to me, and it’s been beneficial for me, to have such a goal - all good for the brain.

            I think a vegan’s brain works better than an omnivore’s brain, if only because it has something monumental to work for. Our brain, as well as our body, is no longer weighed down by a heavy stomach and a heavy conscience. It would be difficult to prove, but it seems that vegan foods, being lighter, allow for a greater speed of thought.

If the vegan brain reacts more quickly on lighter food, imagine the benefit that implies for all of us. Have you ever watched the fast reactions of birds? Almost all wild animals are sharp and observant. They react impressively. Their lives are lived on the edge; attending to safety; avoiding predation; self-feeding. Having quick brains keep them on top of their game.

Perhaps one main characteristic of plant-eaters is they’re quicker off the mark, like birds. We’re usually fitter too. But, alas, also, we’re perceived to be loopier; that’s according to how the media show us. The popular image of a vegan is negative - people only see what they want to see. They want to be the normal ones, who think according to normal patterns. The confirmed omnivore is a normal person, who eats normally and perceives normally. They think we’re rebellious but frail. “Vegans look sickly”. This belief allows the omnivore to think, “... and I’m never like that, like a frail vegan”.

I’ve notice omnivores looking at me pityingly, “He has to miss out on so many things”. They’re sad too, that I can’t maintain a proper social life because I can’t join in on so many levels. And how many times have I had to explain that being vegan isn’t like belonging to a church with rules - when I’m asked, “Are you allowed to eat this?” I tell them, “I can eat anything I like. In fact I eat everything ... well, obviously not animals stuff .... No one in their right mind would ... ”. That joke always goes down well.

From our point of view, in compensation, vegans have a sneaking suspicion that we’re envied, somewhat. Even with my own tiny brain capacity, I always hope that omnivores will compare my mental acuity with their own, relative to their own heavier way of thinking. I’d never say it, of course, but I’d love to ask:  “Sometimes, if you would like to ditch your dull, old-fashioned way of thinking, you could enjoy a robust conversation with me, on these important issues”.

But they’d be mad if they did that. They know the danger of being made to look foolish. Better not to enter into debate. Steer away from this subject as best you can. And here we have the usual break-down of communication on this matter. Which is why I emphasise the next bit: I emphasise that when YOU talk with a vegan, that you should insist they keep to the rules: my rules. Which are:

1. Know that my main aim is NOT to win the argument,

2. Know that I aim NOT to make anyone else feel ashamed or guilty, this being a no-go zone for value-judgement.

3. Know that I deeply respect anyone who dares to have a chat with any vegan, at any time.

Talking with vegans is one thing; a vegan might enjoy it, but non-vegans often don’t. Omnivores can’t be very creative in these discussions. All they can do is defend because of the way they live. They  are compelled to hold on to their fixed views, concerning animal issues. And the liberation of animals mustn’t matter to them - there mustn’t be any reasons to think about these things too deeply.

And that’s where we stand today, some people moving rapidly forward, others are being left behind. Most are still stuck in a state of compulsory non-thought, continuing to go slow on certain important matters. Vegans, on the other hand want to go fast. We want to hasten. But more haste less speed. I’d like put the case for not leaving anybody behind, and to get that priority hard-wired into our new vegan brain before we do any crusading.

Food affecting relationships

875: 

A change in consciousness alters attitude, optimism and habits, etc, but specifically I hope that that includes altering our awareness of animal-beings. It predicts a choice as to which way humans will go, hopefully heading towards becoming a greater species of human.

Without animals having rights (because of their routine abuse), humans remain animal-dependent. Umbilically dependent, too hard to move away from Mum’s dinner table, stuck with old food habits and craving animal-based products. To become food-independent (having a vegan diet) and leather-independent (shoes especially), we take on the big two changes of lifestyle. Until that happens, nothing else can much happen.

Freed animals means freed humans, means freed planet. It’s the ‘bigger picture’, and it represents the growing world and a world growing-up.

Growth, whether it’s personal (becoming more conscious of food-plants) or global (the evolutionary growth of a whole species), it’s always gripping. Everyone is always fascinated to see natural growth happening. It may be too slow to catch with the naked eye but, noticed in increments, it is a marvel - perceiving growth, the changing and even transmuting, is an interest we all share in common. It must be in the nature of humans, to enjoy seeing something constructive happening. We need to experience growth as much as we need air to breathe.

One thing that’s growing these days is animal consciousness, I mean consciousness of them. We’re better informed now, but beyond being better-informed is the growth of empathy. Animal activists nurture their own feelings, so that they can be with them, in their lonely lives.

What can you do when everything that happens is not unlawful. Our power is private. A private revolution, this is. We avoid hurting them, avoid using them, move to the plant kingdom, make peace with our conscience. Thereby, we can stop worrying ourselves to death, about our complicity with one of the worst wrongdoings. Enough said!

Vegan diets are good for humans in many ways, for slimming, for aerobic activity, for long-living, for energy, for mental sharpness, but most importantly, of course, it’s good for ‘the other’. Moving the emphasis off me and onto something needing help from me. This isn’t about my convenience but about their inconvenience. We eat less of the animals and fewer of them get hurt.

If this makes sense, (especially knowing that plant-based foods are second to none), why hasn’t it happened? Why aren’t we all into it? The food itself often becomes the draw card for becoming vegan. We can eat as much as we like and it metabolises perfectly. But to hear the omnivores speak, you’d think we were a bunch of masochistic self-denialists.

Once you’re vegan and know what food you like, then food can be largely forgotten about, as an issue – just enjoyed. If we look beyond the food, we can see other fundamental attractions in being vegan. It beneficially softens relationships. A new-food lifestyle, once established, has a positive effect on relationships, whether with humans or with animals, unless you’re surrounded by a pack of meat-screamers. By switching over to being vegan, suddenly there’s an entirely new source of motivational energy. There’s a glimmer of hope, that we might have a future. This ‘bigger picture’ gives us something to live for. Our partners, spouses, siblings, friends, parents, amongst the people we know, we all want to aim at something we can feel proud of - just by having one positive relationship, that in itself affects everything we do. Now, one step forward, consider our human relationship with a ‘sub-species’.

How we see enslaved animals determines if we are going to become plant-eaters. If we can make the transition, the world has a future. By calling for animals to be freed, our own human-to-human relationships will improve, and feed into a greater and broader empathy.

What is the biggest issue?

874: 

Whether vegan or omnivore, most of us have a stock of well-rehearsed responses to the big issues of the day. We have lots of shock-facts up our sleeves to persuade with. But essentially, advocating for animals is mostly about being confident and not saying more than’s necessary. This is dense information we’re passing on, so we might choose to say little, but what we do say should be sure on facts and figures, so we don’t have to resort to bluff. Background knowledge is essential. It’s the basis of our arguments. We can show empathy, commitment and positive attitude all we like, but it’s our hard background evidence that’s most convincing.

But coming back to the omnivore, who might have to listen in discomfort to what we’re saying. They’re probably having terrible time, visualising what it would be like to ‘go vegan’, and have to deal with so many personal challenges. This is where we decide if vegan-living would present us with a great opportunity or give us a big headache? Question: Are we taking on too much, going vegan?

Crowding in on all these considerations is another question. Is Animal Rights the most important challenge or is there something more important? Is there another Big Issue to be dealt with first? (The omnivore is slippery here. They’d sooner be an environmentalist than have to give up food, anything but that!!)

We need to re-humanise humans. That’s most urgent, the argument being that all else will follow naturally, after that. On the personal front, this could be one of the biggest decisions we ever make. And once made, we can then look at other big issues, all of which need attention. But I don’t think anything BIG can happen, until we stop negating everything good we do, by eating the corpses of murdered animals, three times a day.

What’s it like here in Australia?

873: 

There’s a constant tussle with people over this subject of animals, eating them, caging them, killing them, downgrading the importance of them. I happen to believe one way, you may believe another. Let’s say, we start to discuss our different views, each of us having differing views about many other important matters. That brings us a choice of two ways: be forceful or be soft. This brings me to ‘stoushing’, an important Australian activity. It’s not quite fighting, it’s more like robust-exchanging; when you ‘have a stoush’ with somebody, it’s a fight BUT you trust it won’t get personal. And that gives each person here a certain confidence, to feel free to express your views, and not get cut down for them.

Even in this benign and not overtly-violent country, holding a certain view, about the use-of-animals, is a bit like sitting on a volcano; here you are, you’re talking, conversing, and suddenly the temperature changes. A changed tone of voice, charged, and each about to go head-to-head, omnivore versus vegan.

“If it’s something I said?”, did I light the touch-paper, did I touch a raw nerve? Are we heading for a full-on confrontation here? On one level, I might be deliberately baiting you. You suspect I’m deliberately offending you.  And perhaps, without knowing it, you might be offending me, by defining me in a too narrowly, as being just vegan and nothing else. Perhaps I did take things too far. Perhaps I stirred the hornet’s nest in you.

Here I am. I’m talking to friends, strangers, kids, or whoever, about this matter of animal-use. Likely I’m going to say something that sounds more radical than anything you’ve ever heard before. My knife cuts a little too deeply.

Once this has happened, it’s too late to rescue the situation. So, it then is a matter of pre-empting. Me and You. talking. And it’s down to me, to set the stage, feely-wise, because I’m the one who has initiated and encouraged talking about it; I’m initiating something uncomfortable but unavoidable, into our conversation. For my part, I’m hoping that it won’t be our LAST conversation! Which is why I try to keep what I want to say, limited. And I keep what I do say within the bounds of a friendly stoush. My first priority is to maintain an atmosphere of trust, and leading to friendly-exchange. There’s a vibrational responsibility we have here. And often it becomes a vibrational, brewing trouble between us. So, when I see a break-down looming, I deal with that as first priority, before doing anything else.

At first, in order to get my point across, or make any sort of forward progress at all, I’ll bend over backwards to keep things on a friendly footing; needing to allay your suspicion of me, and what I’m ‘up to’. This subject so important, that we can’t afford to blow it, that’s all I’m saying. The greatest danger we face, as vegan activists, is sounding proselytizing. ‘They’will always wonder of us, whether we are prepared to forgo polite convention or worse, to break that solid Australian social rule of never going beyond a stoush.

To that end, I’ll appear almost uninterested in making any further point, until you feel free to say what you want to say. To that end I’m willing to downplay anything, because I don’t want you defining me too narrowly. My first aim, at the outset of any serious chat on this subject, is to avoid being too easily labelled: me as only ‘vegan’, or me being ‘too obsessed’, or worse, seeing me as ‘Angry Vegan’.

In our society there’s a knee-jerk reaction to vegans, because we are, at least potentially, capable of ruining your day, by what we say.

If you ever enter the public domain, to be speaking about vegan philosophy, or, less preciously, just by having a chat with a mate (about using-of-animals, ‘speciesism’, etc.) you enter the lion’s den. Everyone’s super-sensitive around this subject.

If we want to approach animal issues at all, and be relaxed about it, I advocate signing up a personal binding contract, which says something about my most important behaviour codes. It says, when chatting with you, that I:

1. Promise to be spontaneous.

2. Promise no evangelising.

3. (Easier said than done).

So, we’re having a relaxed chat. You and me. We’re here, trying to abide by rules of conversation, prepared for a stoush. We’re here in Australia, where the egalitarianism is in the air. It’s a not-so-deeply-violent country. In more violent places you wouldn’t dare let your eyes meet, unless you wanted a fight. Where I come from, eyes rarely meet unless there’s aggressive contact. Even in this benign country, a difference of opinion, about the use-of-animals, feels potentially dangerous.

            Here we are. You are talking away, and I’m talking away, and then suddenly the temperature changes. A stoush is brewing. The air is charged. A changed tone of voice and that familiar screech of defensiveness. Dark clouds boil - an upcoming, head-on, omnivore-versus-vegan-battle. Perhaps a raw nerve is hit and we head for confrontation.

            Here we are, talking. Perhaps we’re embarrassed. There’s a hesitancy, a making of over-careful comments. Already, the useful exchange is over. Now we come to that stimulating or frightening new level - ready to spark a stoush - something has offended someone. My offending you, by something I’ve said, or you offending me, for defining me too narrowly (“You’re vegan and nothing else”).

Talking to friends, strangers or kids about this matter of animal-use, stumbles when I say something more radical than anything you’ve ever heard before; my knife cuts a little too deeply, perhaps.

So, by pre-empting the possible storm, I try to keep what I say, within the bounds of a friendly stoush; I’m cautious; I sometimes go madly back-pedalling, trying to keep this deadly-serious subject light. But here is the subtlest balance of all, and one we need to draw on, early-on - the way we don’t always try to WIN our argument. I don’t mean give way on any principle at all, but emphasise wanting only to stimulate discussion of the subject. Humble animal-ambassadors, we vegans are, but we do want, often, to be speaking about this subject. The subtleness of the balance here, especially when vegans know they are at such an ethical advantage, that we can afford to allow some slack, emotionally. That’s the nice-guy approach. The not so nice guy, the one they suspect we are, represents the worst of us. We who deviously lay the way for a coups de grace. We know we have it hidden up our sleeve; our message being so powerfully watertight. We shouldn’t take advantage of this to the detriment of good feeling, perhaps that’s all I’m saying here.

My first priority would always be to maintain an atmosphere of trust, and if it’s not there I’ll try to build it. So, at first, in order to get my point across, or indeed to make any sort of forward progress at all, I’ll bend over backwards to keep things on a friendly footing. My main concern is always to allay suspicion (ugh!!) that I’d want to go beyond a stoush. To that end, I’ll appear almost uninterested in making any further points, unless I know you’re feeling free to say what you want to say. I’m wanting to provide cushions for the blast and the fall-out, and the wrestling with unavoidable and uncomfortable notions. I’d be willing to establish all of that in exchange for you not defining vegans too narrowly.

Vicious fighting or friendly stoushing

872: 

For some of us the penny has dropped - we are not just plant-eaters or animal lovers, we are simply more empathetic to the plight of enslaved animals and more aware of the dangers of animal-based foods. That doesn’t necessarily mean we are nice people, but it does mean we’ve seen a pattern emerging; by dropping animal protein and generally cleaning-up our own act, we’ve been able to see the bigger picture.

            The satisfaction I get from seeing that makes me feel grateful, and I suspect my tendency to empathise springs from the gratitude of having that veil lifted. And even if I’m not a nice person, this realisation makes me a less cold-hearted one.

Moving on, past empathy, past compassion, I end up with a defined ‘interest’; this whole subject becomes more fascinating the more I get into it. It helps me understand this human-dominated world and it lets me study more closely the reasoning of people, who seem to me (without me ever letting them know it) quite lost.

But coming right back to the start of all this, to where your average omnivore starts to consider ‘compassion and empathy’ in terms of philosophy, it’s the start of a deeper awareness of other major global issues. And that, in turn, sensitises a person to the rationale behind vegan principle.

It’s not just about the food we eat but about applying ‘vegan principles’ to daily life. It affects us on so many different levels. It might start with shopping for different food items and clothing, and then painfully struggling with cravings and addictions, but as momentum builds, it has the effect of strengthening the mind; it inspires the emergence of responsibility for repairing damage. It even inspires a new identity for our self. So, if you move from animal-eating to eating solely plant-based foods, you begin to think more broadly, and that gives something else a chance to form - a new self-identity.

With less aggro comes less of a determination to be ‘right’, to win arguments at all costs, to avoid quarrelling, all of which are useful character traits for the peaceful defending of animals. Their eventual liberation will come about when we stop trying to apply pressure on people to change, and show that we respect their freedom to change when they are ready.

Whenever we touch on what people should and should not eat, it has the potential for sparking a fight. I’m a coward in a quarrel and try to find another way, any other way. I’m not saying to NOT bravely uphold one’s position, but we should NOT let the expression of our views deteriorate to the point where we’re fighting people over them. Apart from the rights of animals, veganism is also about the overall ethic of non-violence. So, whenever we clash, we lose some valuable ground. There’s a lot to lose if disagreements-of-opinion turn sour: things get sour when they get personal.

It’s true that in Animal Rights you can lose friends by the truckload if you’re confrontational. We can easily build a reputation for being evangelical. By being less aggressive, by being calm and informative and adopting a gentler way of going about things, we can make our point all the more effectively. It’s true that we do have urgent things to say. We know that the omnivore has a defence shield and we need to break through on some level. The question is, do we risk a fight over it? And if a fight breaks out how do we dampen the flames?

Selling your soul for a steak

871: 

I worry about the deaths of beautiful sentient beings, and the traumas we inflict on them whilst they’re alive. The injustice of denying so many a life, where none of them have any say in their own destiny. What are we doing to them? What is each consumer encouraging to be done to them, when they buy animal-based foods. Animal farms comprise rows and rows of sentient beings treated as production units, having no life of their own and simply waiting to die. For them, each day is a living death.

            For these imprisoned animals, life is all suffering, ending in a grisly execution. Even the most sadistic mass murderer couldn’t devise a more cruel fate for any victim, and yet that is the fate of billions of animals, and it seems that that’s acceptable to the humans who benefit from their being thus treated.

If you were a farm animal, you’d not only suffer physical pain but also the mental trauma of utter hopelessness. You’d have been made impotent, denied any meaningful part in the present world or in the building of any sort of future. As a slave, whether you are human or animal, you live in limbo-land, with none of the features one would normally associate with ‘life’, apart from the physical functioning of your own body. It’s as if the soul has its hands tied.

Now, it’s strongly suggested to children, and repeated endlessly to adults, that all this about animals is okay, since animals don’t have souls. But if humans have souls then they won’t be saved by selling out the animals.

The problem has always been the same for humans - we are led into dodgy behaviour early in our life and then find it difficult to escape these behavioural habits. As young adults, we follow what others do and forgo our own instincts. While young, by swallowing the food others prepare for us, we continue to eat in the same way when we reach adulthood. Just by doing this we perpetuate the mindless violence of our species.

Until we become fully aware of this, how can there ever be any change to the collective consciousness? We think we are superior beings. However, to animals we must appear to be dunderheads who can’t even forage for our own food, as every other animal can do. We only have a certain type of strength and we use it to dominate, enslave and steal; we cannibalize others to provide energy for our own lives. Many humans are intelligent and sensitive but haven’t yet been able to see the nastiness of this particular habit or see through this confidence trick their society is playing on them.

            You might have thought the con was obvious, that no one, when reaching adulthood, would continue to ‘swallow first and think after’. You’d think, in this well-informed age, that we’d all mistrust the authorities enough to be re-examining those ‘core truths’ we’ve been taught, to see if they stood up to scrutiny. But it just doesn’t happen that way. Perhaps it’s never occurred to most people, to question such big things, let alone ‘go vegan’; they haven’t even begun to realise what would happen if they dissociated from social norms and changed their whole way of life accordingly. To them, a voluntary, radical change in lifestyle, ‘going vegan’, would probably equate to serving a life sentence in prison.

It's normal to be vegan

870: 

Watching cruelty being inflicted on farm animals, as painful as that is, it’s something we need to keep looking at. The mind wants to close down, to see it as fiction rather than truth. But the mind can’t be fooled that easily, nor ignored; there’s a noble part of the mind, and it’s these scenes which stop us running away. It nudges us, even cajoles us to look at difficult problems. In this case the mind argues that until the abuse of animals stops, humans can’t move on. And most of us don’t want to be part of the rut mentality.

Apart from food and leading a healthy vegan lifestyle, this is also about breaking away from the conventional mind-set. It’s rebellion, where some of us are making a stand against the arrogance of human domination over every other being on Earth. It’s obvious to all of us, from childhood onwards, that we ‘mighty humans’ have a disproportionate advantage over all other beings. As it turns out, we’ve assumed the role of slave-masters. As human dominators, living in the rich Western world, we are trained to disregard both animals and less-advantaged humans. If we can step onto the more egalitarian road, we’ll see people as equals and never regard animals as inferiors.

If any of us find equality attractive, perhaps it’s because we are grateful for the things we have, not greedy for what we haven’t got enough of. Egalitarianism shows a regard for the disadvantaged, especially if they’re enslaved or exploited. They are something worth fighting for, for the sake of social justice.

The offshoot of this is to make us less pessimistic about the destiny of the planet. Imagine humans being as concerned about the fate of exploited animals as they are about climate change. It might not be so immediately threatening to us, the way animals are being treated, but the biggest danger is in the scale of the problem with animals; it’s threefold. There are so many billions of them in gulags all over the world. Their plight is deliberately hidden. There are seven billion humans committing slow suicide by eating them.

Even if it were only about human health it would be a tragedy, since we are dying at an alarming rate from unnecessary illnesses associated with ingesting animal protein and fat. We are consuming dangerous levels of chemicals fed to the animals that we end up eating. But the greater danger is likely to be self-generated, from the shame of stealing what rightly belongs to the animals.

Why wouldn’t we be ringing alarm bells, and why wouldn’t vegans want to brighten up the lives of their omnivorous friends? All you have to do these days is act normally - be vegan.

Video

869: 

If empathy can inspire us, it can also deplete us. We want to believe that things aren’t so bad and that if we have a little empathy everything will be okay. And when we find it isn’t, we crash. We want to enhance beautiful things and downgrade the ugly things, but that’s too shallow. Empathy needs nurture. You have to rise to the expectations of empathy. It’s like momentum that can slow and fade if not kept pace with. Even as we wring our hands with sympathy for the downtrodden, we still need to follow that feeling through; it needs feeding. It needs great effort and self discipline to keep it focused because there is so much negativity draining its strength. It’s as strong as we care to make it, so the hard work of empathy comes down to self-discipline. If negativity doesn’t weaken it then indifference will.

When it comes to animals and food habits there are always commercial interests trying to divert us – “Should I eat that cream cake of not? Shall I have that delicious-looking crab salad?” We’re seduced by the cashmere sweater or the fur wrap or the suede jacket. We want something that we know we shouldn’t want, but we’re not used to denying ourselves things when we see others buying them. Most of us struggle with our ‘little weakness’ even if we know of self-harming consequences, not to mention harm to others in the production of it.

If we’re lacking empathy we need to practice it, to build it up, to do something for the sake of ‘another’. For animal activists, a very specific empathy is required to keep themselves updated. Even for squeamish people like me, we have to force ourselves to watch video footage that shows animal cruelty, since it helps to build empathy and resolve. By watching the atrocities, it encourages us to work hard to help end further atrocities.

It’s important for all of us to realise that cruelty and thoughtlessness are routine in our world, when it comes to animals used in the food and clothing industry. In all societies the treatment of animals is heartless. We humans hurt countless billions of sentient beings for our own convenience. That’s the reality we are dealing with. Even the most intelligent, well-educated people go along with all this, without protest.

This is why empathy is so important, for us to stay in touch with these animals, and maintain an empathetic connection with people who aren’t yet very aware or who don’t care enough.

The evidence is all there, on those difficult-to-watch DVDs. You can watch them, you can go into shock over them, you can be too squeamish to stay watching for too long. I often have to hold my hands over my eyes in a very cowardly way, but then I know when I’ve seen enough, to remind me what is happening behind those closed doors.

It’s not for pleasure I watch this footage but out of respect both for the animal victims and those brave humans who did the filming, often at risk to their own safety. And, of course, it’s important for us to be kept up to date with the latest findings.

I imagine all vegans want to be well-informed, so they’re in the best position to educate others more effectively. But, for my part, I also want to get closer to the mind of the punter, to remember who I’m talking to, and to bear in mind that these are often sensitive people I’m speaking with. I need to keep reminding myself that we’re all at different levels of empathy, and we’re all at different stages in our awareness.

Empathy bonding

868:

As soon as you take up a conscience-driven, empathetic way of thinking, you can see why vegan principles make sense. It isn’t just about vegan food or just about animals on farms, it’s closely connected with other issues too, which require empathy. When it involves the environment or health or human hunger most people can feel some sort of empathy, but usually not so much for food-animals, on farms. This is where it’s so badly needed but so lacking.

Empathy is at the heart of vegan philosophy. Our vegan game plan is empathy-inspired. From an empathy-philosophy, the vegan diet has emerged. At first it throws up what seem to be almost insurmountable problems. It’s too idealistic, too unrealistic, a nice idea but it all sounds impossible. It’s too demanding to live as a vegan for the rest of one’s life.

These perceptions stand as a barrier, which most people wouldn’t attempt to overcome. Which is why our job is to help people work through the practicalities of implementing a vegan lifestyle.

            But in these early days of growing awareness of animal abuse, most talk is about animal welfare – that we may use them, but we should improve their conditions. Advocating abolition - no animal use whatever - is incomprehensible or seen as far too inconvenient. You can say that vegan consciousness is barely born.

The vegan who advocates animal rights has a huge task ahead, to radically affect the thinking of whole populations, who’ve eaten and beaten animals for a million years. Perhaps our greatest contribution isn’t to persuade people to ‘go vegan’, but to ‘grow’ empathy.

Empathy has very anthropocentric associations. Now’s the time to apply it to other species, to elevate animals to the status of sovereign, irreplaceable beings, in the same way we do our fellow humans.

Empathy ‘grows’ us. It matures us. It inspires hard work, particularly when it comes to the David and Goliath task of liberating of animals. And yet that next logical step seems so obvious when seen in terms of social justice.

I can’t rid my mind of this one simple fact: that animals are innocent. They’ve done nothing to deserve such awful punishment. They are sensitive and sentient beings. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t think of them as our brothers and sisters. There’s certainly no reason to hurt them. 

A small world on a grand scale

867: 

We all live in a global village now, having family-like associations with fellow humans, wherever they are, and with other beings too. This is the age of relationship-awareness. It comes about through increased empathy.

We now have easy access to information. We can social-network, to find out how others are thinking. We are taking on big issues. We’re upping our empathy for non-human species, for environment and for victims of social injustice. There’s a heightening of sensitivity and, in accordance, a changing of lifestyle habits.

In every way, what we’re seeing today is a heightening of empathy and sensitivity. By being vegan, thinking vegan and supporting things outside our anthropocentric interest zone, it’s good for the soul; in other words, it’s a good feeling being empathetic. It’s what a parent can feel when protecting a child who is weak or inexperienced.

In this Western world there is none weaker than domesticated animals. Billions of them are standing there right now, on hard concrete floors or in wire mesh cages, instead of freely roaming across the earth and forest floor. And billions more, fish, no longer swimming free. Humans have manipulated the free-ranging of animals on a massive scale, and degraded the land and oceans beyond recovery. The social injustice of that is mind boggling. That’s why Animal Rights is such a great cause to be involved with.

Great energy, the substance of our future

866:

Veganism, non-violent attitude, eating satisfaction, ‘being vegan’, they’re all highly self-benefiting. But best not to get too cocky with it, telling people, “I’m vegan, you know”. It’s sometimes better to let them find that out for themselves. And we don’t really need others’ admiration or understanding anyway, because it’s not likely to be forthcoming. And that’s as good a reason as any, for not expecting it. The fact is that most people’s reactions to our being vegan stem from a grudging jealousy for what we seem to have achieved (a certain undefinable self-confidence, is it?), and the self discipline we seem to bring to our lives. But again, that mustn’t matter to us; a non-vegan can’t possibly know how it feels. They have to live ‘outside’ simply because of what they eat and wear and use each day. They remain unaware of what it’s like to be a part of such a noble cause (concerning the ending of animal enslavement). Nor would they know, in one particular way, how expanded a mind could become, or how energised bodies can be. I can’t speak too highly of plant foods and their properties, combined with the head-space that animal-empathy brings.

For my own part, by ‘going’ vegan, I experienced an energy I’d never experienced before. It comes with the food I suppose, or is it from a newly empowered conscience. I don’t know how it works, but it’s a very valuable thing to have – clean energy. It occurs to me that if it’s so easy to tap into, why doesn’t everyone do it? Perhaps the side attractions of food, clothing, social conformities, etc, are so seductive and habit forming, there’s not enough reason to employ that energy. But how short-sighted that is, since this particular energy is crucial to personal growth. Taking on vegan principle, applying it to our lives, winning rights for animals, all this requires that particular energy. It’s needed in bucket loads for ‘advocacy’ work, since we face huge odds against us. People are reluctant to give up violence, whether towards each other, to animals, or to the planet itself; they would rather not change, for fear of the many things they would have to deny themselves.

But for those who are living according to vegan principles, we need a powerful source of energy to plough through the collective resistance. We need its encouragement, energy being the one big reward for giving up so many delicious but toxic animal foods, and always having to be so very different from everyone else. By being a herbivore we optimise the fuel we use. We draw the best energy from the best source. When feeding three times a day, we ingest high octane fuel, and what plant-based-food-energy does for us on a physical level it does for the mind too. I believe plant food makes us think quicker and more bravely too.

I like to think that a vegan is a free-ranging, freedom-loving, conscience-clearing individual, who looks at broader issues and isn’t too partisan in favour of any one cause. Having broken through this one great barrier in order to empathise with animals, we’re able to see how all the other big issues of the day have common roots, each pointing to a coming-together in the future. There’s a common foundation of consciousness, as it effects environment, animals, kids, education and health, all of which are great causes worth fighting for, for the moulding of the future. Because vegans have a clear view of how ‘vegan principle’ points to non-violence, we then see with more altruistic eyes. By developing a sense of empathy we take the emphasis off the self-serving ‘me’ and carry it across to ‘the other’.  Vegan principle empathises with the interests of others, especially with the interests of the weak; the ‘weak’ inherits the future.

Motivational energy

865: 

High energy is something we all find attractive. Kids have it in abundance, wild though it might be. If you have it, as an adult, it’s something very satisfying, especially when it’s ‘busting-out’ with good feeling. Perhaps what I’m saying is that vegans have access to that energy, because that’s precisely what you get by eating solely plant-based foods. Vegans have energy to burn.

             But what sort of energy is this? Is it a macho energy, so useful for winning wars? Or is it the less overt energy that drives motivation?

            A vegan diet is physically energising but it also has, within the reasoning behind it, a unique motivational energy; we are, after all, involved in one of the most revolutionary projects - the freeing of animals from human bondage. The energy needed to bring this about has to be exceptional; it has to come from somewhere that humans so far have never dared to look - from the plant food we eat, without the diluting effect of non-plant-based foods .

The food regime vegans adopt isn’t like any other diet, since the reasoning behind it is the boycotting of the foods we DON’T allow ourselves to eat. Ours is an on-going experiment to test what plant-based foods can offer; these foods (for the soundest of ethical reasons) must replace animal-based foods, but they must bring us to that point of security where energy and health needs and where eco-friendly criteria are met too. If all our food requirements are to come from this source, then they must be physically not-heavy, they must be relatively inexpensive, and sufficiently satisfying, and we should feel no hankering for the alternative product. If all these requirements can be met, then we can be fully active with clean energy coming from a clear conscience. How optimistic is that?

Animal Rights gives us an excuse to find meaning, and surely there’s nothing as meaningful as the prospect of a world without animal-exploitation. For this, we give up nothing, except for daily participation in violence; as far as I can see, there’s no better prospect for our species. There’s no better project in life, than to transform our own species in such a simple way. And if this is such a worthy project, I’ll want to give it my best shot, and pursue it efficiently. I’ll want my mind working smoothly, without squandering energy and without making too many mistakes. So, we come back to that unique quality of plant-based foods, which give us so much energy and immunity to the sorts of illnesses which plague people today. Most importantly, it gives us a sense of momentum.

The good intentions of people are held back by lack of meaning, energy and self esteem, rather as if they are driving a fine car with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. When we experience this forward momentum there’s something akin to a perpetual-motion type of energy - the more of it we use it the more we get; it expands rather than expends. The mistakes we’re bound to make, along the way, might not seem so destructive. With a clear conscience, negativities can roll off us like water off a duck’s back. It seems to me that Vegan Animal Rights is a particularly constructive project-for-life.

If we have to put up with criticism, ridicule and denigration, or if we don’t get support or encouragement, or if we’re not taken seriously, does that really matter at this early stage of the game? Any of these set backs, generating from unenlightened sources, are insignificant when there’s enough highly energised momentum in our lives. 

Back to judgement again

864: 

Value judgements - we make them frequently. As vegans we feel justified in making them, but we’re not as brave as our beliefs make us feel: we slander those who eat the animals we love and we argue the issues vigorously, but only in our own heads or with fellow vegans. We do it where it’s safe, whereas we should do it in public. We need to be able to put our money where our mouth is. It’s good for us, because it forces us to back up what we say and take any amount of flak. If we have to judge people then let’s do it courageously.

            We, as vegans, have a lot to say. If we can’t be rigorous and yet gentle at the same time, if we can’t resist showing our nasty side, then it’s best to keep quiet.

            We dish it out but don’t like taking it; we all fear being judged by someone else. Perhaps vegans feel invulnerable, that no one would dare judge us, but we should remember that it’s  a terrible feeling, to be disapproved of or judged. For us, as vegans, making judgements is as dangerous as walking through a minefield. That’s where we find the vegan traps waiting for us.

            The safest judgement-target is a person who can’t fight back. That’s when you may not care if they hate you, because they can’t tell you. Vegans tend to make generalisations; we say, “Humans are wicked, that’s why things are so bad”. It means nothing and touches no one in particular, but if we get more personal, where the accuser confronts the accused, then it’s much more of a risk.

            If we start to make judgements, each one leaves behind so much destruction that, forever after, we’re looking over our shoulder for the consequences. Value judging seems to solve something at the time, but it’s like a plate of hot chips, they’re satisfying and filling but they dry you out. I’ve noticed that when I blame someone or I judge them, that I sound sour, and get a reputation for it. Then, no one is inclined to listen to what I have to say. And the more often I fail to communicate, the more often I look defeated. If I lack faith in myself, and consequently lack faith in the way things will turn out, I’ll probably resort to blaming. It’s not that vegans doubt the position we’ve taken up, but generally we doubt our ability to communicate our position adequately. We often seem to want only some sort of support from others, in the form of their agreement with us.

            You know what it’s like? You come away from an exchange with someone, feeling drained and annoyed. It looks like a battle fought and lost. Apart from all the bad feelings left behind, it saps everyone’s energy.

            The alternative to judgement is unselfconscious talking about the issues, without any evident attempt to find agreement. And if we enter the world of judgement-making, we need to skip off it as soon as we make it, as if walking on an ice sheet that is about to melt. Judgements can be useful within our own heads, if only to help support our own values, but if we express them, they must melt as soon as they form. 

Food-like

863: 

Tasteless vegetables and fruits plus the widespread practice of spraying chemicals on crops has made organic produce popular, especially when prices aren’t too high. I expect the same will happen with cruelty-free items. However, today, right now, these particular ‘reasons-for-buying’ aren’t strong enough to alter buying patterns and therefore farming practices.

We come back to ethics, to becoming more ‘animal conscious’. There’s a double whammy here in that people aren’t fully aware of the plight of animals nor do they realise how important their support is to the Animal Industries, just by being consumers.

            In the Animal Rights movement, if we haven’t been able to sensitise people, it’s because our heads were in the wrong place; our biggest fault is that we smell of defeat.

On the whole, and for good reason, we activists are deeply pessimistic, which is why we keep resorting to moral judgement to promote our arguments.

Perhaps we doubt the wisdom of investing so much energy into something that’s doomed to failure. Animal Rights doesn’t seem to have much hope. We keep being disappointed. But if we had a more realistic time frame for this gigantic lifestyle revolution to take place, we’d not wallow in pessimism and disappointment but simply concentrate on setting things up for future generations. Does this sound to idealistic, too altruistic?

            We all want the bad stuff to stop, and the sooner the better. And, in all honesty, we want some rewards for going vegan, for taking up the cause of animal liberation.

If only!

Perhaps altruism is the easy bit. I know a lot of selfless, hard working activists. It’s the studying of the whole range of animal issues and the subtleties of communicating them which is much harder.

            The rough game-plan might be already worked out in our heads, but it’s how we go about getting the information to sink in, in our own head, so that we have it at the ready to draw upon. We need to be quite eloquent when talking through the issues. And for that we need to do our homework. There are books to be read, videos to be watched and we might need some hands-on experience with farm animals. There’s quite a lot of work to do to familiarise ourselves with the main issues. But that’s not all.

            Emotionally we must be strong enough to take in the horror of what’s happening. Now that it’s been so well documented, it’s available for you and I to find out about it. But it’s hard to read the material and even harder to watch the visuals.

But let’s slip back to the matter of effectiveness. I suspect that some of us (more angry people) watch the footage and that stirs up ever more anger within our own heads.Once you’ve seen or read about what’s being done to farm animals, heard the arguments and gathered enough information, you form a picture, and from that you can formulate answers; when people want to know something, when they ask questions, we need to be ready with something informative or instructive to say.

            After reaching a point where we can talk about it convincingly that’s when we need to have not even a flutter of judgement in our voice. The talking can take place. I don’t mean preaching or lecturing, but letting talk be a thing of itself, where we take a more creative approach. If we can let things arise in conversation, almost unselfconsciously, it appears less threatening, less contrived, and that’s the opposite to evangelising at the first opportunity.

            Bringing people around to the idea of Animal Rights is a soft revolution. What we surely want here is a very voluntary cooperation, not a slogan-driven conversion. We aren’t the imposers of discipline nor is veganism a religious cult. This is a gradual realisation process people go through. I hope we are seen as educators and softies, who don’t use force or moral persuasion, but instead appeal to intelligent arguments and logic. It would be so easy to take the ‘high moral ground’ or use that tone of disapproval in our voice.

Take for example the inexperienced teacher who, when a student can’t understand something, accuses the student of stupidity; they don’t blame their own poor teaching. It’s the same with us. Vegans know very well that we have ‘a better way of living’ but others may not know that. How could they? I think it’s much better to tell people what they might need to know, rather than tell them what to do.

If someone decides they’d like to make this change, they’ll need to know how to make a safe transition, and that’s where useful advice comes in. It’s practical advice that’s needed, nothing more. Imagine the hurdles to a would-be vegan: how to find vegan alternatives, how to cook new dishes, how to cope with friends who aren’t vegan. Importantly, people need time to weigh things up for themselves. What they don’t need is hurry. They don’t need pushing or shoving. No one should try t hurry anyone over this very personal and private decision.

            How do you get people interested? How to get them impassioned? How, to actually like us enough to want to be like us!

The time is right now

862:

Disapproval is the weapon we use when pissed off with someone. Vegans don’t like what they see in people, they hate having to be silent and resent omnivore’s intolerance of veganism. So, we disapprove of them.

Then they hit back ... and so it goes around in circles. Vegans have to break that circle, to take the lead, hard though it is.

            I’m always disappointed by our lack of impact. But, as a union of vegans, we’re divided over how we approach omnivores, how far to go with them and what to emphasise. Some want to advocate total abolition, others settle for a partial non-use of animals. Added to this, we’re divided over what approach to take, when talking on the subject of ‘animals’. There are those who go in hard and there are those who favour a softer approach. The most outraged and bravest vegans initially go in ‘hard’, both to impress colleagues and show themselves how determined and committed they are. But what of the other way?

            How effective is it to be seen as a ‘softy’? Vegans want for people to rise up against misinformation and dangerous food products. But most people aren’t ready because they don’t see the bigger picture. They can’t imagine themselves dropping the traditional foods they like to eat. Nor can they know that at each step away, from a conventional mind-set, discomfort lessens.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, things could hardly be going better for the Animal Industry and purveyors of animal-based products. They know that customers will always demand the yummiest foods.

            All we vegans can do is to continue promoting cruelty-free products and encourage people to boycott animal products. The odds are against us. Small markets mean small choices; there isn’t a big enough market to warrant vegan foods being produced. If you want a Mars Bar you pay $1 at Woolworths. The equivalent cruelty-free bar is four times the price. Cruelty-free products are priced for the smaller-market, and that’s the big problem for many of us on limited incomes. But little by little, as the cruelty-free companies grow and can reduce prices and sell more, the wheel begins to turn in our favour.

In the meantime, we have to learn to do-without, when vegan alternatives simply aren’t available.

            Presently the Animal Industries are raking it in. They know what customers want and, ethically, how much they’ll tolerate to get it. But as health concerns and moral outrage increases, so the idea of alternative foods will be more seriously considered. 

Lightness of being

861: 

As vegans, are we or our view admired? No, not necessarily. People see us as masochists and our philosophy as idealistic.

            Do omnivores want to agree with us? No, they certainly don’t, because they can’t see how life could ever be fun again - if you had to give up so many things, food mainly.

            Maybe vegans have a warped perception of the omnivore mind. Maybe we think they’ll listen to us if we push them hard enough. But it hasn’t worked so far. To date, few of them have gone vegan.

Perhaps, for vegetarians (half way reformers) the seductive qualities of dairy products hold them back. And for meat-eaters, celebrating such events as weddings and Christmas, by feasting on rich animal protein, is irresistible. To interfere with that is unthinkable.

            As a percentage of the population (in Australia), vegans are a tiny minority, much tinier than in Europe and North America; but at the other end of the scale, in most countries, vegans are almost non-existent. Perhaps things will stay this way for a while yet, until specific ethical constraints make boycotting animal based foods fashionable.

            I doubt if we’ll start to see signs of permanent change until we talk to our own conscience. Conscience awakens empathy. Until then, there are important ‘don’ts’. The value-judging of the animal-eater (to shame them into change) won’t increase empathy. Being angry, outraged, disgusted, etc., won’t help the animals either.

If our aim is to spring animals from jail we have to find a way to impress the general population; if we’re serious about getting people to become animal-conscious, we have to transmute our outrage into something like a ‘lightness of being’. Patience is impressive and has a calming effect on this animal-liberating revolution, because it will associate change with non-violence of approach.

            Humans have one big attitudinal problem – we have a big brain and a big fist and we use the first to wield the second. But we’re also very conscious of fashion and that might be our saviour. Fashion is the big changer, and in this case a fashion change in attitude might be stronger than the wisdom of diet change. 

Consolidating our advantages

860: 

I think the art of talking about this subject is in looking a bit vulnerable. I don’t mean deceptively so, just as long as we don’t try to speak from the pulpit. Even though we can’t stand the idea of murdering animals for meat, we have to accept that there are different points of view about this, and we ought to know what those views are before trying to present counter arguments. Otherwise what we say will go in one ear and out the other

            I think the omnivore that it might take a very long time for cruelty to food animals to mean very much, when it’s weighed against food sensation and its instant gratification. The taste-sensation, the stomach-filling, the crunch and bite and ooze, the salt, the blood-taste, the sugar-hit – they’re all connected with a familiar oral pleasure that has been developing all our lives.. It’s perhaps the most powerful external-internal interface we know. It’s not only associated with satisfying hunger and therefore easing the fear of starvation, but it’s also associated with rich living which eases the fear of feeling poor and worthless (as if we are not even worth feeding). Loving what we love to eat is not a casual time-passing activity, it’s what stays pretty much at the forefront of the mind all the time. Just one little twinge of feeling peckish and there’s a need to satisfy that slightly empty feeling, and indulge all the choices of taste sensation. One small setback in our day and we compensate with a snack, a favourite savoury or sweet treat. The omnivore will not discriminate along ethical lines, if it’s animal or non-animal doesn’t matter. The only important factor is that taste buds need appeasing and the body and mind need calming.

So giving up any of this instant pleasure would seem like unnecessary self-punishment. Why would anyone choose to do without what is so available, for the sake of animals? One would have to be crazy or masochistic. Apart from becoming healthier, (and most young people feel themselves to be immune to ill health) why would anyone give a plant-based diet even a moment of serious consideration? 

Bearing all this in mind, I’d suggest that, for the activist vegan, emotion should give way to determination, and urgency to patience, if only because the omnivore is nowhere near ready to be led to our views yet. Our frustration is a difficulty for us, and it’s hard for us to not expect to se much progress. But it’s important that we hang in there and develop an optimistic patience. And withal, we might need to get used to the absence of positive feedback.

It shouldn’t surprise us that the average omnivore probably thinks we are either crazy or masochistic. We need to be like the parent who provides interesting meals for the family but who doesn’t expect the kids to compliment them on their cooking. That they grow up well fed is all that can be expected; and it’s the same with our efforts to enlighten people about animals. It might sink in on a subtle level without the need for direct agreement or approval.

As activists and advocates we might need a better understanding of the scale of the change we want to see. To bring people across to our view, that animals shouldn’t be exploited, we have to realise it’s a more radical attitude change than anything attempted before.

            To recap: animals are slaves and our aim is to bring that to an end. Angry we might be, but determined activists have to be in it for the long haul. We don’t need to fly any flags or keep hitting people with ‘the truth’. Our job isn’t to bore them or lecture them. We mustn’t go on about being vegan if that just gets people’s back up, and inhibit them. We want them to hear what we say and then go home to consider things we’ve said. We mustn’t make them feel so uncomfortable that they’ll go home and open the fridge for some crap-food to make them feel better,  to help them forget us.

When omnivores do agree with us they’ll often do it in the hope of shutting us up. The more praise they shower on us (saying how much they admire us for the ‘stand’ we’re making) the more they hope to calm us down, in order t be rid of us (before we ‘go too far’).

Whether for a good cause or a selfish one, the more we want admiration from others the less we’ll get it. When we seem to impress people by shocking them with the facts, we may not be impressing them at all. Their seemingly positive feed-back may just be politeness, to please us. People won’t become vegan out of politeness.

The mind of the omnivore

859: 

Maybe vegans are on the outer because the principle of harmlessness is still foreign and we’ve no top professionals arguing our case. Has anyone ever heard of a vegan barrister,  defending the rights of animals (pro-bono)?

Bright minds in our society are engaged elsewhere, usually making money or if conscience-driven, fighting for humans. Above all, they are defending their careers. If they were to put their weight behind Animal Rights, they could do serious damage to their career prospects.

            Needless to say, our opposition is formidable. The ‘Animal Abuse Club’ have power and money, and they find it relatively simple to win the hearts and minds of the public; they are selling popular products after all, whereas, we’re trying to sell a whole raft of radical ideas. They want to shift the public’s money their way, and we want to shift the public away from using animals.

Attitude change, concerning animal-use, is disappointingly slow. Most people probably think we’re mad to suggest we should never use animals. We have a great case to argue, they stone-wall us. In return we judge them “unethical” to show how much we disagree with them. But although that makes us feel better, it’s destructive. The more we find fault or insult, the more our adversaries dig their heels in; it comes down to saving face in the end.

Our balancing act involves not cornering people into opposition but giving information without the emotional overtone; by not thinking-judgement of people we show no judgement and can then inform, help, serve and encourage. Doctors don’t judge a person as being careless because they are ill, they simply diagnose and recommend treatment; likewise with us, we don’t help anyone by condemning them, but we can help by recommending certain changes. We can even be less direct; with care we can be subliminal with our suggestions.

First up, we must never be insulting or getting uptight or try to score points – people are super-sensitive to any of that. Even if we feel a boiling rage about what is happening to the animals, we can’t afford to show it. I might feel heartbroken at people’s insensitivity, but I would try to judge them. If I did ? How will that help anyone? It’s likely that our ‘boiling over’ is simply a way of I’d be doing it for my own relief and end up shooting myself in the foot, by risking spoiling people’s opinion of me. I see no point at all in being quarrelsome over these issues, and differences of opinion.

So, this is the danger; I present a clear, calm argument and then get upset when people disagree with it. The trap I’ve often walked into goes something like this: I get upset and say why their argument is faulty, and after a few backwards and forwards, if I still seem upset they think they’re winning the argument. They stay calm but won’t back down, which makes me aggressive in my answers.

How strongly people disagree, even if they have poor arguments, indicates how they feel. If I use my memory I can remember my own similar feelings once. Most of us felt the same way they feel. But maybe there’s a memory gap here. I can’t really remember the sequence of events that made me leave traditional foods and to go vegan. But I do know that I progressed from one stage to the next, and to the next, until I arrived at a point where I am now. All I know now is about now; that I know quite a lot about this subject but that most people don’t know about it, and don’t want to.

Fundamentally, I (we) have to realise that it’s impossible for omnivores to know what it’s like to be vegan. They can’t possibly know how strongly we hold our opinions when they are underwritten by daily practice. They can’t know how empowering it is to live by one’s own philosophy, nor how good it feels to stand up for something as important as Animal Rights when very few others are doing so.

I, and others like me, can feel okay about my commitment, there’s no problem with that, but there are difficulties which show up as soon as I try to proselytize. I would be trying to convert a whole social attitude, unaware of the capacity our subject has to inflame unattractive traits in people.

I am inflaming by showing up the animal-abuser  and, by inference, all consumers who support them. I inflame also by seeming to boast about my ethical self-discipline. I’m speaking to someone who ought to feel ashamed but at the same time showing off my righteousness and selflessness. This is why I can come across as being an unlikeable person, so it’s no wonder that people aren’t inclined to take my advice. And no ordinary advice at that?

If we want to pass on ‘good’ advice it needs subtlety. If we engage in any moral arm twisting people will drop us. Even with friends, especially with friends, they might think it better to have no friend rather than one who is a bull-at-a-gate-preacher-friend.