Energy-generating

1097: 

          

If energy is a problem, it’s only a problem if there’s not enough of it. Maybe we have to start considering energy not as a finite resource, like having so much petrol in the tank, but more like a self-perpetuating substance. It’s the way in which it’s used that determines whether it can generate any replacement energy, this being based on the idea that the more you put out, the more of it comes back.

Shall we say, this energy, used for the greater good, is the sort that can stimulate the making of energy. As soon as we’re doing what we consider to be meaningful work we unconsciously expand our energy. Or, to be brief, this energy expands as it expends.

         

Let’s say that acts of usefulness or kindness, where there’s a fairly big energy investment on our part, show less overall energy depletion than expected. Perhaps well-intentioned activism uses the sort of energy where the more of it we use the more is replaced.

In our line of work this would need to be so, because we can’t forget the conditions animal activists have to work under. There’s an in-built drain on our motivational energy simply because of the sheer weight of opposition we face, by the denigration of our values, being ignored and probably even being thought stupid for having these values in the first place.

         

But ultimately these are only the small drawbacks of the ‘job’. As activists, we’re operating on several fronts at the same time, holding ourselves together whilst carrying on doing what we are doing without being put-off.

One important part of our ‘job’, as activists, is to learn how to handle the minority-ness of our work. And part of that is learning how to handle people with the mentality of doing what they want to, without any hindrance. Should we hinder? Should we observe? It’s still open to question which approach to take.

On the plus side, for us, there’s a surprise-energy, which pops up from time to time. I think it comes from self regard, nothing more - who better to be motivating us but our very selves, when we’re tingling with something we’ve done that we’re proud of. We say to ourselves, “Okay, good-one”. The reason this energy seems to appears from nowhere is down to us letting go of self interest.  Could it be that when energy is released for the ‘greater-good’ that we set off a chain reaction?  For instance, as soon as we begin to take an interest in a forest, an animal, a human or any important issue, the energy we need will appear from nowhere? The opposite can happen too, where self-interest drains energy, as we see when there’s an insatiable thirst for more, and the harder one tries to pick up energy the more it drains away and slows things up. 

If energy works like this, (for example, harmful energy sources like meat eventually depleting our energy, whereas harmless, life-giving sources of energy, like plants, building energy) it puts a new spin on things - that however hard pressed we feel there’s always enough energy left over for meaningful activities.

Energy maximising

1096: 

Maybe as vegans we’re convinced about our arguments concerning animal slavery, even though we know it’s going to be a long drawn-out David and Goliath affair.  The odds might seem stacked against us and the tide not turning our way, but we mustn’t be afraid of energy loss from effort-output.

I know I spend time fretting over my ineffectiveness, so I try to steal energy from my other commitments ... but then something else goes short in my life. Relationships get stretched. There’s never enough time to do anything else, well. I’m torn between doing more Animal Rights or spending less more time on ‘other things’, (family and friends, etc.).

         

The original idea of Animal Rights is totally inspiring but eventually it makes a call on our energy, so for my part I keep it well boosted, reading, evidence, to feed my passion and outrage. But if Animal Rights work cuts out a personal life, then the energy balance isn’t right. It’s a hard call, energywise, so where’s the extra supplies of energy to come from? Certainly from vegan food (no crap and stodge) but mostly from the sheer significance of what we are trying to do. So, it’s crucial to get this energy balance into working order since burn-out  - You know the rest!

After the debate

1095:

After the talking is over we might have to agree to disagree.  If there’s an atmosphere left behind, we are anything if not sensitive!  If there’s something unlabel-able-but-not-quite-right that springs up, it’s because we’re airing delicate matters.  Over which there may be very few points of agreement.  Eventually we must move on, work to be done, etc.

Under whatever difficult circumstances we meet each other, when we get talking about this subject, it shows a lot about our character if we contribute quite heavily to allow us to rub along together, disagreement or none.  Probably we all have learn’t ways to defuse a situation before it gets explosive.

Hopefully we all learn to take up our positions in life, and often in opposition to one another, and yet when it comes to the crunch, surely, we must still refuse to take umbrage or be prepared to go to war over a difference of position.

         

If we always regard opposition as a positive challenge then opposition doesn’t feel so much like an assault (even though any ‘softening on my part always makes me seem as though I’m caving-in, even though I don’t feel it that way).

Out of all this:

As long as we don’t shy away from this subject because it seems to cause a disturbance, then I think there are only two things to bear in mind:

1. Keeping focus on the point of difference

2. Do something towards making constructive person-to-person repairs, where necessary.

The growing gulf appearing between vegans and non-vegans is a bit like that between greens and foresters or Christian and Muslims.  Useful dialogue doesn’t take place; it’s only possible where each side feels free to dip in and out of issues (maybe concerning food, animals, health, planet’s future, non-violence, and so on) and come away with some new-learnt value.  Better that than coming away with more emotional baggage which eventually needs to be sorted out anyway.

Wanting to delay the inevitable attitude change is what, on some difficult level, we’re all fighting. 

Debates and face saving sessions

1094: 

It’s hard to get a debate going on Animal Rights.  We may be busting to tell people everything we know about the horrors of animal abuse, but others hold strong views too, so we need to respect their sovereignty of opinion, even when we reckon they’re of the wrong opinion.  All opinion-holders should be free to say their piece, otherwise we lose our freedom-of-speech.

           

There should be clear channels for airing our views, without fear of being attacked or cut down before we’ve finished speaking.  If, for example, we’re debating the use of animals, we’re bound to touch on the use of animal products ... which will bring us to eggs and milk and the cruelty behind their production.  Whether we’re discussing with friends or speaking to an audience of strangers, there’s no point in jumping the gun, coming on too strong, coming in too quickly, creating a separation where none’s necessary, with the sort of statement that says  “I’m making-it-clear-where-I-stand”.  First alarm bells - there’s an extra-certainty in the voice. Then both voice and message get a bit primal, coming across as a fear-of-losing-the-argument.  Once there’s the slightest whiff of fear in the room, it’s easily sensed. It’s the old familiar smell of fear. ‘I am being attacked’. I am being cut down. Second alarm bells - as soon as we realise we’re no longer on common ground and things dangerously close to getting personal.

Just at this precise moment it’s make of break. And if there’s just the teensiest bit of aggro in the air, you bettcha it’ll be noticed.  People (as in all of us) dig in our heels. We argue-against, if only to save face.

And that’s basically where the communication channels, between vegans and omnivores, stand at the moment. 

Setting the stage

1093:

There’s so much waste and cruelty and so much done against the greater good, that it might make you want to despair.  But it can also quicken the importance of the work that has to be done - giving urgency to the work of repairing rivers, forests and habitats, as well attitudes to animals.

           

Vegans, having somewhat cleaned up their act, by shaking off their cruelty-violence-‘shadow’, they can contribute meaningfully towards the transition to a peaceful future.  A vegan, in seeing the beauty of animals and Nature, and wanting to do them no harm, would also be trying to come closer to people, especially those who hold different views from us.

           

We have to lead by example, even if that means taking on the sort of discipline that keeps us separated from others. But as different as the look of our lifestyle might be, there is still no reason to think there’s any essential separation from others (of different persuasion). It’s tempting to be disapproving of them, but the last thing we need is anyone disliking vegan principle because they dislike the vegan who introduces the idea.  We wouldn’t want the bathwater to be thrown out with the baby.

Including a Quote from Will Tuttle

1092: 

If we are going to talk about Animals Rights, we have to decide when to pull back and when to press forward.  We never know where someone’s breaking point is - we can’t be sure if they’ll be stimulated by the challenge or want to avoid being attacked.

           

We might be having a casual conversation about Animal Rights.  Since this is never a ‘casual’ subject, we might duck and dive around the issues ... with nothing said quite directly, with feelings hidden in an attempt to avoid souring the atmosphere.

           

Here’s a quote from Will Tuttle’s book The World Peace Diet. (http://worldpeacediet.org - page 222)

[He refers to our cruelty and violence towards animals as our ‘shadow’.]

“Children who are violated and abused will, when they become adults, tend to violate and abuse their children in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that rolls through the generations.  We address it by trying to stop the child abuse, and fail to see the deeper dynamic.  This human cycle of violence will not stop until we stop the underlying violence, the remorseless violence we commit against animals for food.  We teach this behaviour and this insensitivity to all our children in a subtle, unintentional, but powerful form of culturally approved child abuse.  Our actions condition our consciousness; therefore forcing our children to eat animal foods wounds them deeply.  It requires them to disconnect from the food on their plates, from their feelings, from animals and nature, and sets up conditions of disease and psychological armouring.  The wounds persist and are passed on to the next generation.

           

“Compelling our children to eat animal foods gives birth to the “hurt people hurt people” syndrome.  Hurt people hurt animals without compunction in daily food rituals.  We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?  We carry the violence, in our blood, and in our consciousness.  Covering it up and ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear.  The more we pretend to hide it, the more, like a shadow, it clings to us and haunts us.  The human cycle of violence is the ongoing projection of this shadow.

           

“In Jungian terms, our culture’s enormous, intractable, overriding shadow is the cruelty and violence towards animals it requires, practises, eats and meticulously hides and denies. … The shadow archetype represents those aspects of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge, the part of ourselves that we have disowned.  To itself, the shadow is what the self is not, and in this case it is our own cruelty and violence that we deny and repress.  We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people.  We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein.  Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.

           

“As Jungian psychotherapy emphasizes, the shadow will be heard!  This is why we eventually do to ourselves what we do to animals.  The shadow is a vital and undeniable force that cannot, in the end, be repressed.  The tremendous psychological forces required to confine, mutilate, and kill millions of animals every day, and to keep the whole bloody slaughter repressed and invisible, work in two ways.  One way is to numb, desensitize, and armour us, which decreases our intelligence and ability to make connections.  The other is to force us to act out exactly what we are repressing.  This is done through projection.  We create an acceptable target to loathe for being violent, cruel, and tyrannical – the very qualities that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves – and then we attack it.  With this understanding of the immense violence toward animals that we keep hidden and the implacable shadow this creates, the existence of 50,000 nuclear warheads becomes comprehensible.  Our “never-ending” war against terrorism becomes not just comprehensible but inevitable, as does our appalling destruction of ecosystems, the rampant exploitation of the world’s poor, and the suicide, addiction, and disease that ravage countless human lives.

“The shadow is the self that does the dirty work for us so we can remain good and acceptable in our own eyes.  The more we repress and disconnect, the more inner disturbance we will carry that we must project on an outer evil force, an enemy or scapegoat of some kind, against whom we can direct our denied violence.  We will see these enemies as the essence of evil and despise them, for they represent aspects of our self that we cannot face.  In our quest to eliminate them we are driven to build the most hideous weapons imaginable, developing them throughout the centuries so that today we have the capacity to destroy all of humanity hundreds of times over.  This is not just something in our past, like the generations of inquisitions, crusades, and wars.  We eat more animals, project more enemies, and create more weapons than ever before.  Every minute 20,000 land animals are killed in United States slaughterhouses and the Pentagon spends $760,000 (every minute).  This huge expenditure on maintaining and developing systems to harm and destroy other people is a particularly egregious manifestation of the tragic suppression of intelligence caused by eating animal foods”.

Will Tuttle (reprinted with permission)

Vegan

1091:

‘Vegan’ sounds difficult. Not hard to understand but hard to carry out. It’s based on principles a small child could understand but it comes down to giving-up favourite foods, and neither small children nor big adults want that. And what about clothing items, woollens, shoes, silk, and animal circuses and rodeos and cosmetics and rabbit-eye-tested shampoos?

Vegans are suggesting that ALL of this should be boycotted, because cruelty is present in the life of every animal that’s used.

Millions, billions of people, tacitly disagree with what vegans stand for. So, this is one mighty principle that vegans are trying to defend. Part of that is ignorance, and this is what we have to get used to, the pain of being misunderstood. Our own life and integrity is on the line here. We are combining many issues with Animal Rights. Not only are we campaigning on behalf of animals but for a better carbon footprint and a fairer food distribution system. Without animal farming we hugely benefit the environment and solve the problem of food shortage in ‘hungry’ countries. (It seems that in the ‘less-developed’ world, enough food is grown but most of it is sold on to richer countries where it is fed to animals which in turn feed those same humans).

Being a vegan may be difficult, but we have the advantage of  completely disassociating with animal cruelty. Whatever hardships we have to put up with as vegans, and it is more than tedious living in a non-vegan society, nothing’s really that hard for us, compared to what animals have to put up with. The thought of the suffering they go through makes boycotting their ‘products’ a small price to pay.

           

Going vegan isn’t a breeze. On a personal level we have to deal with our addiction to certain favourite foods. And we’re up against the popular belief that a plant-based diet is inadequate. But once we feel nutritionally safe and have successfully given up animal products, something else happens. We’re released from self-censorship, we’re suddenly free to talk out this subject, first in our own heads, and then to take it to the outside world.

But then we encounter a new frustration. We begin to realise the scale of ignorance amongst even the most well educated, kindest and well-intentioned people. It seems almost everyone is unwilling to sacrifice their steaks and yoghurts, their woollen jumpers or leather shoes for the sake of helping to end animal slavery. The resistance to boycotting is far greater than one realises. Reluctantly, we must admit that most people are obstinate to change. Most don’t want to know. Most don’t care. Most refuse to listen.

These are some of the hurdles we face when becoming vegan. Once one of them is overcome, it makes way for a fresh obstacle. Put another way, once one stage is reached we feel the urge to move to the next stage. And that’s when vegans want to talk ‘Animal Rights’. We would like to discuss ideas. But then we meet a brick wall, and maybe feel frustrated by people’s indifference. That’s when we might think there’s nothing to lose by stirring people up - the only way to ‘get people to listen’ is to shock them. We shout “Meat is Murder”(knowing it really means “You are a murderer”). This will make them come to their senses, and want to change, we think. But of course nothing could be further from the truth, nothing more insulting than to be called a murderer. Battle lines are drawn. It all becomes catastrophic for communication!

Targeting the consumers

1090:

A young vegan woman once told me that, when we’re food-shopping, we should think of the beloved cat or dog at home.  It would help us remember similar animals who are not so well loved, notably those living on farms.

           

As vegans we must try to touch the heart of consumers and help them make a transition from meat-eating to plant-eating.  If we remain aloof, they’ll think we don’t care about them and that they’ve got no one to turn to.  And if there is no realistic alternative (as veganism should suggest) they will stay put, and won’t see what the Animal Industry is doing.  In effect they’ll be identifying themselves with the killers, packers, processors, producers and retailers, in effect the people who’re employed by the Animal Industry.  And that will lead them to be indifferent to the feelings of the animals.  Ethics won’t enter into it.

           

If we can’t provide friendship, advice and support, anyone who might want to change towards a more ethical lifestyle will fall back into the arms of the more comfortable untruth.  The industry are always there, willing to reinforce their image.

To keep the truth from the consumer the Animal Industry will keep the farm doors firmly shut.  Since animal farming is still legal the industry is secure and made more so by scientists who tell us that we must eat meat.  And they are backed up by our spiritual leaders none of who are willing to speak out against animal cruelty.  In fact they say it’s all okay, and that God put animals here on Earth for us to do with as we wish.

Consequently, 95% of all adults, in every country of the world, are sucked in.  Which is why it is so important that consumer re-education must be high priority.

Reciprocation and respect

1089: 

If we expect others to show respect for our views we’ve got to show similar respect back. In this case, respecting their freedom to express their opinion.  The sort of changes we want people to make, can only be made when free-willed individuals decide for themselves that it’s time for change. Then they’ll begin to change their lifestyle, but with no pressure, no hurry and no guilt. For my part, I’m glad no one pushed me.

I believe change happens when a good idea sparks excitement, not guilt.  Guilt stimulates movement at first, and then dissipates, but inspiration keeps on firing. Imagine if a person, who is a regular omnivore, can identify with us, even like us, but not necessarily want to live like us. Then it comes down to trust and respect, listening to what they want to say and they returning the courtesy, willing to listen to what we have to say, even being inspired by our views.  To maintain a good balance, we have to offer some good arguments without any of the ugly personality showing through.  We aim to hold their interest without there being any sense of expectation. And as long as we leave them with something new to think about and have forsworn force, then we’re half way to winning them over.

Dialogue between grown ups

1088:

Why can’t we discuss this subject of Animal Rights like adults?  Perhaps because we haven’t established any ground rules.  Certainly, we vegans want to discuss it, whereas most non-vegans do NOT want it even mentioned let alone discussed.  But if we ever do get to talk about it, before we can be taken seriously our adversaries need to be sure of some ground rules, which include our being fair minded.  We need to give them a chance to say what they think (without our jumping down their throats at the first opportunity), after which they’ll be more inclined to hear us out.

           

If I’m talking to anyone who isn’t a vegan, I mustn’t show any personal disapproval, it just gets in the way.  It shows I’m afraid of opposition.   If we ever get to talk sensibly about this subject, that in itself is an achievement.  That is already doing a lot for animal rights, just by having the subject aired.

           

For quite different reasons, discussion isn’t always easy for vegans – and that’s our fault, not anyone else’s.  I may have a lot of bottled up anger and frustration, and if that can’t be kept under control, I’ll never reach a mature standard of debate-behaviour.  I’ll just come across as a rat-bag who is easily dismissed.

Harmlessness can’t be forced

1087: 

By adopting an overall non-violent approach, we don’t have to weaken our connection with people, or weaken our support of animals.  The underlying principle of non-violence is guardianship.  A vegan should be caring for all.  We consider animals to be in dire need of protection, which is why we encourage responsibility towards them.  But this also means we feel a similar protectiveness for one another.

Harmlessness implies being patient enough to allow people to change at their own rate and within their own capacity, without our attempting to force it or without being judgemental, if only because it always fails to impress most free-willed people.

Certainly change is urgent, certainly the horrors of animal farming must be stopped as quickly as possible but when we are dealing with free-willed people who have firmly held opinions.  Which mean nothing can be hurried.

Free-will, freedom of speech and thought, is what humans have fought so hard for.  We treasure our freedom to think for ourselves.  We are most proud of our opinions on things, but unfortunately we’re pretty good at celebrating these hard-won freedoms, but less enthusiastic when it comes to taking responsibility for what we do.  And that applies especially to the matter of how we treat our animals.  We, the consumer, blindly consume without asking the questions we know we ought to be asking.  So much of our food and clothing comes to us courtesy of the abattoir, and we the consumer are not taking responsibility for what happens there; we don’t want to know the details. 

           

The reality may not be pleasant; that people are willing to turn a blind eye in order to enjoy the benefits of animal slavery.  But if that is so, then people like animal rights activists have a hard fight on their hands.  If we want to alter people’s irresponsibility we mustn’t use aggression because it makes it too easy for people to dismiss us and then dismiss what we are saying.  We have to learn to swallow our outrage and start to connect with people.  We must persuade change but without rushing people into it against their will.  We have to listen, even to opposite views, as to why they believe it is right to eat or exploit animals.  Our biggest test is to show we can listen.  And slowly introduce our ideas in easily digestible chunks. 

Abolitionism

            

1086: 

This matter of talking about animal issues.  We vegans go on about the same old thing but what matters in the end is getting the omnivore on board, on side.

If the animal liberationist is to inspire change, permanent change, then our arguments need to be introduced carefully, like planting seeds in fertile soil.  To fertilise the soil we need to build trust and respect, and argue our case as non-violently and as non-accusingly as possible.  We need to touch sympathy spots, and describe ideas that will stick in the memory like any great message.  We should be promoting ‘liberation’ not just in terms of welfare reforms or making incremental stages of granting privileges to animals.  And we don’t need to confine our arguments to matters of diet.  These are important details, but they don’t deal with the bigger, underlying matter of ‘abolition’, as in not using animals at all for human benefit.

           

It’s from the idea of ‘abolition’ that everything else flows, as it did with the abolition of human-slavery.  To end the enslavement of humans there had to be a major change in public opinion.  A fundamental attitude change was necessary before slavery could be ended permanently.  When slaves were freed, only then did people see why it had always been about outright abolition.  And it’s the same with the slavery of animals.  It ALL has to stop, so there will never be any back-sliding, especially when things get extra-tough or extra tempting.

There was a time, during wartime conditions, when there was little food.  It was far easier to convince people that it was a matter of kill an animal or die of hunger. And following that came the intensification methods, so there was no danger of severe food shortage. This is the convincing reason for taking extreme measures, enslaving and killing animals on an industrial scale.  Most consumers are taking part in this terrible tragedy, daily, when there’s absolutely no need to.  Plant-based food and clothing, shoes and coats, and commodities in general, are plenty life-giving enough.  There’s no need to make any use of animals, whatsoever.

Imprinting the idea

1085: 

Talking to someone about Animal Rights/veganism/plant-based diets, etc.  I want to say my piece, but how do I say it?  What voice do i use and what about body language in general?  What do I do with my face?  Do I smile, to show you how friendly I am?  Perhaps that’s dangerous, since it could be seen to be ingratiating, false.  But essentially, I do want you to think I’m friendly and non-judgemental. I don’t want to scare you off.  Or for you to see through me, or see my smile masking a disapproval of you.

We vegans, who think we know all about food, should realise that many omnivores know about food too, in as much as they know what they like and believe that they are what they eat.  So, it’s really up to us to see you as a fast-tracking, observant human being.  We need to bend over backwards to acknowledge how difficult animal issues might be for you.  We have to show willing to have our arguments critically assessed by you, and not rubbish your opinions.  We aren’t asking people to agree with us, we just want people to think for themselves; to think about animal issues and arrive at their own conclusions.

           

Up here in the clouds, we vegans can easily forget how hard were the changes we made, when ‘going vegan’.  And now, down the track, we might be saying ‘Going vegan is simple’.  But that mightn’t be true for many of us; it might have been like an alcoholic giving up drink.  For some of us it meant making a massive decision, sparked mainly (but not only) by compassion for farm animals.

The omnivore is faced with a massive number of (mainly) food temptations, many of them derived from animal based foods.  And then we come along, talk about big ideas and all sorts of frightening things to do with health consequences, animal cruelty and environmental impacts.  We create another reality which jars against the reality of the ‘normal’, familiar, day-to-day world.  What we say is quickly forgotten - it’s like coming out of a movie feeling pumped by the whole emotional impact of what we’ve just seen, and then later on the details fading, after having been carried away by what we’d seen.

           

With new ideas and attitudes, if they aren’t examined and digested thoroughly at the time, the power of them fades too quickly.  Nothing consolidates deeply enough, so we don’t get around to making the big changes suggested by the big idea.  We revert back to safe-old, lifestyle habits and attitudes.

Whatever vegans are saying, our ideas need to be imprinted, and that might take some time and some skill. 

Animal Rights via Non-Violence

1083:

A vegan might accuse the omnivore of having double standards - “You say you love animals but you eat them”.  Obviously this isn’t too-friendly an approach.  You might say, “You eat meat?  Wow!  That’s so uncool”.  Both are hostile approaches.

Myself, I wouldn’t be so up front.  I’d prefer to say, “It’s your choice.  Do what you like”.  But that would be a cowardly approach.  Wouldn’t I be better off being hostile rather than slimy-all-friendly, with just enough judgement in my voice to show disapproval?

             

With the animal-eater we can go two ways.  If we speak too softly, then nothing we say will be heard, and if we speak too loudly we run the risk of offending people.

Whatever way we choose, it’s likely to shock. We’ll either be dismissed or attacked.  It rather depends on how we put things.  How do we say something strongly without inviting an overreaction, making further discussion impossible?

           

Perhaps we can consider understatement.  It isn’t what’s expected, so it might just slip in under the radar.  “I recommend a no-cholesterol food regime”, or “There are some very interesting plant-based foods on the market”. If you can light up a previously dark corner, open up an alternative food-route, it might change nothing at the time but afterwards it gets to be thought-about.  This will probably not happen if we try too hard to hammered home our ‘shocking message’.

           

The whole process of ‘changing a person’s mind’ isn’t a simple, quick or easy thing to do. The ‘current mind-set’ is the result of many decades of attitude-forming. Trying to change a person’s mind, which has always been involved in daily routine, is made less easy if we try to force it. Most people we talk to are very sensitive to criticism, implied or otherwise. Animal issues are sensitive and have to be packaged in a non-judgemental way, so as not to corner people.

           

Being vegan, we are against any sort of animal eating or animal-use, whether flesh or by-product.  It makes us angry, and in the past we’ve earned a reputation for being angry, which we now have to live down.

We need to get across that we regard animals as our friends (and we don’t eat our friends!) but to then find a way to talk casually and yet profoundly on this subject, but without a trace of attack. This is a much more sophisticated interaction to aim for with our adversaries. Whatever we have to say, it should appear as a completely non-violent approach.

Shopping!

1082: 

Ed: CJ

Humans have the potential to be kind.  Most of us would be incapable of deliberately making an animal suffer.  But we’re duplicitous enough to let others do our dirty work for us.  We let others imprison the animals, mutilate them and kill them.

When things happen 'out of sight, out of mind', it’s as if 'what our eyes don’t see, our hearts won’t grieve over'.  The shops that sell dead animals to us, make sure the final product no longer looks like body parts.  Or are we so used to seeing slabs of flesh on the shelf that we don’t associate 'meat' with a once living animal?

We are brought up to see no need for making ethical decisions when shopping for food or clothing.  We see the product we want, reach for it (as we’ve done a thousand times before), pay for it, take ownership of it and consume it or use it.  And we mindlessly repeat the same shopping process again and again.  Our minds are put at rest when there’s a never-ending supply of the products we want to buy.

If we buy a battery egg or a leg from a lamb, we buy it because we want it.  We aren’t usually that concerned about the way it was produced, or about the animal from which the "part" was taken.

No one is in favour of cruelty to animals, but no one wants products to be expensive.  So when Animal Welfare reforms are made and prices go up, consumers are faced with a problem.  They must decide between 'economics' and 'ethics'.

It’s essential to remember that (at this point in time) however much the welfare of animals is improved, they will still be 'enslaved' and/or 'slaughtered' - by humans - for the exclusive use of humans.

Unless we are willing to accept this speciesist scenario, we should never be at peace with current Animal Welfare "reforms".

Ed: CJ

Out of sight

1081: 

http://worldpeacediet.org.

“We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people.  We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein.  Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.

“We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?”

Will Tuttle The World Peace Diet.

Animals must not matter

1080: 

Animals must not matter

Everyone says they want a peaceful world but few link peace with food choices.  Even amongst the most educated, very few believe Animal Rights represents a start to the end of violence in our world.

           

To vegans, however, it seems obvious that the only way to bring about lasting peace is to admit food comforts are linked to human violence.  It’s a tough call for meat eaters, who’ve accepted that “animals must not matter” in order to continue eating them, despite knowing what happens to bring the live creatures to our dinner tables.  Their brutal treatment on farms and abattoirs redounds on us all, weakening us so much that we can’t commit to change.  We have no hope of rescuing our world.

You’d think we could change, if there were even a slim chance to save our world, but we’re too far gone, too hooked on favourite foods, not to mention the leather, wool and silks we are so used to wearing or the many other products we use at the expense of animals’ lives.  We think that, if we tried to change our lifestyle, out of consideration of animals, we’d have to make too many personal sacrifices.  Perhaps we don’t think that by setting an example we’d be able to generate enough non-violence to rescue the planet.  So we don’t bother to do anything, and just carry on as before.

           

Humans could be the planet’s greatest asset, but to date we’re its greatest curse.  Our refusal to change our lifestyle, in this one way, perpetuates violence and dooms us to inevitable self-destruction.  All the time we see animals as property, all the time we keep slaughter houses open, we make a mockery of Nature and debase our own lives.  As long as we continue doing that we’ll find no peace and remain impotent to repair the damage our violence has brought about. 

           

Unlike any other predator, whose food supplies are limited, for us, for a long time, there’s been an abundance of choice.  That, largely because we’ve ‘perfected’ our husbandry techniques by imprisoning animals and captive-breeding them. 

A lifetime of not thinking for oneself

1079: 

Animals are getting killed in their billions whilst the consumer is led to believe that animal-based food products are something to do with good health and strength.  Things are made easy for the consumer - but the consumer isn’t completely blind.  It’s clear that meat-eating is coming to be unfashionable.  But the pull of food products especially is becoming greater.

To date, most consumers haven’t seriously considered this.  They haven’t even thought about changing their eating habits, and perhaps they never will.  Maybe they’ll hold out till the eleventh hour ... until they’re so personally afraid of death or afraid for their kids’ health ... or even the future of the planet ... or until their consciences prick too painfully ...  It’s harder for older omnivores, who are nowhere near being vegetarian let alone vegan.  So, inevitably, older people will become ill and live sadder lives, kept alive longer, never knowing why things have gone so haywire.

The media

1079: 

I often wonder if the Animal Industries are concerned about the growing awareness of what could well become known as ‘war crimes against animals’.  Even if they are not thinking that far ahead, perhaps they are concerned about any fall-off in business – the growing trend, of young people particularly, to ‘go vegetarian’.  The more people who find eating bits of dead animal repulsive, the more they’re likely to talk to their friends about it. And the fewer customers the abattoirs will have.

There will always be a rear-guard action, when The Authorities do whatever they can to suppress the truth about animal farming and processing.  The Animal Rights Movement has consistently, over a period of forty or so years, been giving the media evidence of what’s happening on farms and in abattoirs.  The media, in turn, have consistently down-played that evidence, since they are governed by their advertisers.  They try to publish as little as possible on the cruelty of animal farming.

Today, thankfully, information is available on the Net, making conventional media somewhat redundant.  There’s so much of everything on the Net, so now it’s not so much a matter of information being accessible as being found.  But one only needs to know where to look for it.

First cracks appearing

1078: 

Being a vegan isn’t a belief as much as a ‘compassion-philosophy’ that makes us think twice about eating murdered animals.  People don’t ‘convert’ to ‘veganism’ as much as they decide not to do a certain thing any longer – in this case, to eat or wear animal-based products.  One denies oneself the pleasure or convenience in order to deny giving the exploiters our business.  It needn’t be anything much more than that - this we use: this we do not use.

It’s simple enough, the boycotting.  It means that we decide to simply deny our self something, as a gesture of support for exploited animals.  You might, in the same way, deny yourself a car because it pollutes.  You might decide not to benefit from free labour by no longer owning a slave.  There’s nothing about this that constitutes a ‘belief’. It’s just a decision to no longer give in to temptation.  It might just as well be one’s refusal to take a shot of heroine, based on one’s wish to avoid addiction.  For why would one become dependent upon something which is both unnecessary and personally harming?

Veganism is no more a belief than is the sense in taking a diversion around a minefield.  As soon as one realises the sense in being not-too-close to danger, it might seem like not wanting to be complicit in supporting something which before seemed inconsequential.  When it becomes obviously NOT inconsequential, then one takes evasive action.  If you don’t, you become consciously complicit and have to adopt the attitude of ‘the Devil take the hindmost’.  A desperate decision! 

Normalising the Unthinkable

1077: 

Ed: CJ

For those of us who try to observe the principles of harmlessness and veganism, it’s difficult to understand how so many people can accept what happens to animals without being revolted.  How do people come to accept what is so obviously an evil, and think nothing of it?  Perhaps it is connected to the banality of evil.

Originally, the idea of the 'banality of evil' came from Hannah Arendt, describing in the1961 trial, the monstrous deeds of Otto Adolf Eichmann – notably his ability to inflict such suffering and death upon a vast number of Jews and how that contrasted so markedly with the appearance of the man himself.  She said:  "His deeds were monstrous, but the doer ... was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous".  In his book Triumph of the Market, E.S Herman suggests that normalising the unthinkable, doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way, rests on a process "whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done' ".  He goes on to say, "There is usually a division of labour in doing and rationalising the unthinkable, with the direct brutalizing and killing done by one set of individuals; others keeping the machinery of death in order; still others producing the implements of killing, or working on improving technology."

Today, the process through which farm animals must be put to turn them into cutlets or sausages for the dinner table, has been perfected.  But it is all the more ugly for that.  And the ugliness is so obvious that it’s wise of the 'Industry' to keep it hidden.  It might have been true, when Dr. Samuel Johnson avowed that "We would kill a cow rather than forego eating meat, but visits to slaughterhouses have made quite a few people into vegetarians" .  Today, the Animal Industry has wised up by keeping their doings secret.  Members of the general public are never allowed into abattoirs or vivisection laboratories or factory farms, so we never get to see what goes on there.

What we do see, are picture-book cows grazing in paddocks.  It seems so benign and so much a part of our 'normal world' that it doesn’t seem close to unthinkable brutality.  It’s all been normalised.  It’s all become acceptable.

Quoting Herman again, "Normalisation of the unthinkable comes easily when money, status, power, and jobs are at stake.  In relation to the instruments and machinery"… (in relation to animals in our case, machinery inflicted on animals) ... "intellectuals will be dredged up to justify their production and use".

The cruelty of intensive farming, for instance, is rationalised by the fear of competitors taking business away from local industry.  It is suggested that, "If it wasn't me somebody else would do it".  But perhaps most important of all, the great engine which keeps this whole process going - the consumer, the market - is based on normality.  It is important that the end product is attractive enough to sell and the buyer keen enough to buy it, which makes it logical that consumers are ignorant of process.

From Herman’s book again:

"A cover story of Newsweek some years ago, illustrating U.S. consumption of meat by showing livestock walking into a human mouth, elicited many protests - people don't like to be reminded that steaks are obtained from slaughtered animals; they like to imagine that they are manufactured in factories, possibly out of biomass". . . "Our technical superiority reflects our moral superiority.  One must keep in mind that we are dealing with lesser creatures.  And this in turn allows the routinisation of violence and the banality of evil."

Arendt says: "Evil is a surface phenomenon.  The more superficial someone is, the more likely will he be to yield to evil.  Thought tries to reach some depth, to go to (the) roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing.  That is its 'banality'.  Only the good has depth and can be radical." 

"The moral and ethic standards based on habits and customs have shown that they can just be changed by a new set of rules of behaviour, dictated by the current society".

I suppose vegans are awaiting such a society to dictate this new set of rules.  In the meantime we are offering our own suggestions.

My last quote: (Herman) "It seems that for most people, it is better to do nothing, not because the world would then be changed for the better, but because only on this condition could they go on living with themselves." 

(Ed: CJ)

Vegans take things too far

1076:

Because most people are still grappling with their feelings about humans who are different (classism, racism, homophobia, etc), it’s all too much to then consider our kinship with other species.  Most people don’t consider that animals matter - they are separate from humans.  Many people believe we’re superior. This is confirmed by eating the ‘sub-species’.  If we didn’t feel superior we’d choke on every mouthful of meat we ate.

           

This is why vegan principle is potentially such a danger to society - we advocate equality with other sentients. One doesn’t screw one’s equals.

In human society we can be friendly to our differently-coloured neighbours living next door. We can show affection for our companion animals. But we can’t have warm feelings for cattle and pigs.  That would be taking things too far. We prefer to take equality with a pinch of salt when it comes to the little comforts of life. Considering and wanting to protect all animals, living as a vegan, it’s incomprehensible. Most people would prefer vegans kept quiet or even kept quiet. Which is why those same people agree that Society should portray vegans as uncool, weird and extremist.

Convenient Untruth

1075: 

In our culture, when ‘the authorities’ tell us to eat foods derived from animals, we listen to what they say.  We want to believe them, especially if the foods they promote include yummy animal-foods.  They advise us that meat makes us strong.  It’s essential.  It’s okay to kill animals.  “Their lives are terminated in a humane way”, we are told.

           

Animal Rights addresses ethics.  It calls on two issues - slavery and killing.  We dispute that animals are either ‘looked after’ whilst alive or killed ‘humanely’.  But the facts and pictures so obviously speak for themselves. I doubt if anyone would try to argue that animal farming is NOT cruel or that slaughtering is NOT cruel.  

The authorities put it about that vegans want to subvert Society.  They don’t actually say this in so many words, because that would draw attention to our opposition-voice - they’d rather people ignored the issues altogether than try to dispute them.  They don’t much care what people think as long as they continue buying their products and continue to believe that they live in a comfortable, humane world.

Kinship

1074: 

Although adults have more life experience than children they nevertheless, in one particular way, don’t differ from kids; both have an innate sense of kinship.  We enjoy each other’s company, have a sense of guardianship for each other, the elder for the younger and (perhaps later in life) vice versa.

           

In the same way, each child and adult has a strong sense of kinship with their animals at home - the family dog or cat is part of the family.  They have shorter lives than us and their death can be heartbreaking, as it can be when we see any animal in distress; humans naturally want to protect the vulnerable from hurt or exploitation.  But there’s another side to us, where we want to assert our rights, do what we want to do, have what we’re used to having, even though it might involve being brutish.

When it comes to food, our naked self-interest overrides our protective instinct for those animals we use for food (and clothing).  We have to feel somehow ‘against’ certain animals, so that we can sanction their murder.  It’s not acceptable to kill or eat dogs but it’s okay to kill and eats pigs.

This is something we’ll neither discuss or even think about too deeply.  Over the matter of using animals for food, we are un-budge-able.  We crush the softness in ourselves when it comes to the thousands of products on the market derived from animals.  It feels almost natural to use them, because we’ve always done it and because everyone else does it too.  We are even willing to give up on self-control in order to accept that we’re programmed; that we can change almost everything else about ourselves except our sexuality and food preferences.  We believe that we can’t un- programme ourselves.

Even if we like the idea of being more in touch with our soft side, it’s too risky.  It presupposes that in order to soften ourselves over certain matters we must harden something else in us, namely our resolve; we need resolve in order to accept our ‘little weaknesses’ that make life more pleasant, namely the many animal-based products on the market.  In addition, we would find it difficult to resist indulging in ‘violence-foods and commodities’, because we know we must validate common practice.  By what we eat, we wear a badge declaring our membership of Society, signifying our ‘normality’

For just about all of us today, we exchange the ideal of non-violence for a quiet life; we conform.  And after years of conforming, our habits become ingrained, and then we’ve no way out.  We still have to justify our decisions, so we pluck a defence out of thin air, by seeing animals simply as a resource; we take the view that it’s okay to kill them if we eat them and make the fullest use of their bodies.  By having some sort of ‘no-waste’ argument to support our practice, we hope to exonerate ourselves.

All this is magnified a thousandfold when it comes to making a living from animals.  If you are employed to exploit animals, it’s hardly likely you’ll feel like an animal ‘guardian’ (because you’re helping to kill them).  That’s how it must be for animal farmers.  But it’s not that much different for consumers.

Little wonder then, that Society won’t discuss welfare-issues (for animals used for food and clothing) let alone ‘rights’-issues.  State-sponsored education never mentions having kinship with these sorts of animals, only a need for kindness and respect towards other animals, including those in the wild or those at home.  It’s as if the ones on farms have done something wicked enough to justify showing no kindness towards them.

Most education programmes touch on food, and when they do they emphasise the need for humans to eat meat, milk and eggs, suggesting it’s dangerous to health if we DON’T!!

This is what vegans are up against.  Indeed, this is what farm animals are up against!!

Separation

1073: 

To really keep separate, to really control people, whether low caste, uneducated or vulnerable, all we need to do is keep our distance and not get too familiar with them.

           

The necessary distance-of-separation depends on what makes us tick - how far we want to ‘do the right thing’ by them, or how far we’re happy to screw them.

           

A range of exploitative attitudes pass from generation to generation till they become group attitudes.  'Separation-ists' learn how to put a person ‘in their place’ and they usually operate with them on an ‘auto-pilot of dislike’.  By disliking our victims we can better justify what we do to them. 

In our treatment of animals (primarily concerning resource animals) we need them to be useful yet docile. The vast planetary population of domesticated animals need to be managed as easily as possible.  Farmers say they love their animals, whereas in fact rather dislike them.  For, by actively disliking them they can justify heavy handling. 

           

On farms, any amount of heartless treatment is fair game, and all the better if it’s routine and barely-thought-about.  An emotional separation is essential for those who are hands-on.

           

If you aren’t a ‘separation-ist’ you may be more attracted to the egalitarianism of differences, and be attracted by those very differences, either between people or other species.  If you’re a true non-separationist, you’ll probably be in favour of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. You’ll want to give the best treatment possible to the marginalised.

           

But the separation-ists are still in the ascendant.  They prefer to keep others ‘in their place’, and it also applies to other species; culture-discrimination transposes to species-discrimination.  Most humans rate animals (along with ‘lesser-people’) as being lower than themselves, and this allows them to dish out poor treatment and not feel bad about it.

           

Humans do terrible things to animals and can still maintain a smile, knowing that a nice dinner is waiting for them on the table. Something delicious and meaty. What could be better? And it’s always been like that down through the ages. Until, in the nineteen forties when all this was seriously questioned. The possibility of an animal-free diet was mooted.

Until we realise what is really happening to animals, we will continue to sit at our dinner tables, hoping no conscience-pricking vegans come by to spoil our enjoyment; a vegan, talking about ‘our kinship with animals’, would spoil our dinner entirely, especially if we’re eating an animal at the time.

Some human decisions can be so cold.

1072: 

The cow bonanza is just one of many farm-animal bonanzas from which animal owners benefit. They profit not just from the sale of the animal’s carcass, but from various by-products (like milk and eggs) taken while alive, or from ‘co-products’ like leather/skin, often the most profitable part of the animal. To do what we do to farm animals requires a cold heart especially when the animal is very young or very good-looking. Then, particularly, the farmer not only needs to emotionally separate from them but also needs to become hardened from seeing them as beautiful. Imagine how rabbits look, especially white rabbits with big eyes, bushy tails and gentle faces. It needs a truly hard heart to exploit this animal, but the worst of it is, today rabbits are held in cages, like hens, and live confined, standing on wire mesh floors only to be killed for their fur to make akubra hats. The rabbit is just one of many abused farm animals. But unlike others, they are also companion animals. They are especially popular amongst vegetarians as they too are herbivores. All the more difficult to see them caged and destined for an ugly execution.

Being superior beings

 1070: 

Humans have always been advantage-takers and inferior-bashers, whether in the name of racism, speciesism or religious superiority. In particular circumstances, we are hardwired in favour of separation and inequality. It is so much easier to exploit animals if we think they are inferior to us.

Just look at the way most of us treat new people who are different to us, by practising ‘separation’ on them. We don’t admit to this, and in fact we might even appear benevolent or compassionate to show off our liberal credentials. But in our private feelings we still practise separation, to mark our difference between us and them. We do the same thing with animals, in the belief that they are ‘brutish’ and insensitive to pain. This allows us to exploit them and feel no pity for them.

           

Separation-beliefs are integral to hierarchical systems – if we are on top of the pile we consider certain humans and absolutely all animals as inferiors, allowing a markedly different treatment from that we lavish on ‘nearest and dearest’. We often show more respect for our companion animals at home than the human next door; but we show far less respect for wild animals and zero respect for the animals we eat.

1071: Posted Tuesday 3rd June

Animals’ use-by date

Once we make any part of our living from ‘animals’, it means we align with and feel safe to be involved with those who exploit them.  You can’t afford to be sentimental about animals, and it’s essential to be able to feel separate from them to enable the transition which is essential for all farmers of animals.

Separation is essential too with humans, if we want to control or enslave them.  First we must establish a separation, so that we can put them in their place.  In one way it’s much easier with animals, they’re afraid of humans but they’re sometimes cute and cuddly.  Above all, farmers must steel themselves against this since farming is about business, and animals are there to be managed.  Often they’re controlled with violence, by way of rough handling and shouting, or with electrified prods or biting dogs.  These measures guarantee docility, and that makes manageability easier. 

           

But the farmer must withhold friendly feelings, otherwise he’d never be able to have his cute and cuddly lambs executed.  Perhaps it’s the same on the factory floor, where the dependent employee, in fear of losing her job, always obeys and never expects to be befriended by her employer, who pushes her to her limits, for sound economic reasons.

           

Much the same thing happens on animal farms.  The farmer has biological control over the animals’ bodies.  They can be fed and bred at will.  Animals can be made to pull carts, produce eggs, fatten, reproduce, make milk, and all to create maximum profit.  And once spent, the animal is liquidated.  Similarly, but on a much smaller scale, at home, it’s sometimes easier to have our companions ‘put to sleep’, when the vet bills get too high.

           

Determining the fate of animals is what humans do, all the time.  We underline our superiority by emphasising their inferiority.  The more inferiority, the lower the sentience, the more we-the-consumer pragmatically justify what we do to them.

The animal farmer is a big-time pragmatic; if he notices a reduction in the productivity of one of his animals, he has them extinguished.  They become redundant property.  To any farmer, they’re never anything other than easily replaceable objects.  They’ll defend their actions with a supporting line like: “They’re ‘put here’ for us to do with as we please.”

Perhaps animals are the spoils of a species war, long since won.  The theory is: we won that war, giving humans the right to dictate the entire fate and current existence of the animals we’ve taken.  And so we’re entitled to seal their fate.  Animal Liberation is attempting to unseal it, for the animals’ sake alone.

They, their fate, their offspring, it is determined by the human, by force.

Whenever people get around to talking to vegans, about it all, they usually get a big surprise to hear how the cow is artificially inseminated to produce calves, and often these calves serve their only real purpose in embryo.   Before they’re born, the foetus triggers high lactation in the mother’s body, thus releasing huge quantities of milk (not ever meant for the by-now exterminated calf, only for the human market).  The cow is as powerless to stop her calf being born (and then disposed of) as she is of any other biological function of her body.  She is our ‘convenience store’.  We’ve turned her into a machine which lactates and bears a calf every year.  The dairy cow would normally live for around twenty years but she’s ‘put down’ at about half that age.  She’s too exhausted by constant pregnancies and milking and therefore no longer economically viable.  Here’s where the farmer has to be particularly pragmatic, when he decides she warrants no more life, since she can no longer earn her board and keep.

There’s not much of a loving relationship between landlord and tenant, down on the farm.  The animals are just there to be exploited for profit.  And when we buy the products of animals, all this is what we give our financial support to.

Being superior

1070:

Humans have always been advantage-takers and inferior-bashers, whether in the name of racism, speciesism or religious superiority. In particular circumstances, we are hardwired in favour of separation and inequality. It is so much easier to exploit animals if we think they are inferior to us.

Just look at the way most of us treat new people who are different to us, by practising ‘separation’ on them. We don’t admit to this, and in fact we might even appear benevolent or compassionate to show off our liberal credentials. But in our private feelings we still practise separation, to mark our difference between us and them. We do the same thing with animals, in the belief that they are ‘brutish’ and insensitive to pain. This allows us to exploit them and feel no pity for them.

           

Separation-beliefs are integral to hierarchical systems – if we are on top of the pile we consider certain humans and absolutely all animals as inferiors, allowing a markedly different treatment from that we lavish on ‘nearest and dearest’. We often show more respect for our companion animals at home than the human next door; but we show far less respect for wild animals and zero respect for the animals we eat.

Leaving Others Behind

1069: 

If we abandon certain aspects of traditional lifestyle it doesn’t mean we have to abandon friends, or make it a condition of our friendship that they must agree with us. Vegans can set a valuable standard here, since we’re the ones wanting to discuss things. We usually initiate an interchange on this subject, and we should know that it serves no one’s interests to quarrel or trash the feelings of people we talk to. It’s a matter of a fine balance: there’s nothing to be gained by separating from others or leaving them behind. But there’s also nothing to be gained by pretending that we find acceptable that which we clearly do NOT accept.