Broken silence

1530: 

Today, information doesn’t have to be restricted. There's no need for censorship on touchy issues like farm-animal abuse. It just needs the compliance of everyone concerned, who themselves have an interest in keeping 'unnecessary' information to a minimum.  If the individuals who make up the media all have the same interest in eating animal-based foods, you can be sure that there will be a silence in the media. Stories will be kept unreported, and in that way the journalists will keep their jobs (if not their integrity) and the public will be ‘protected’ from knowing about the routine attacks of animals on farms. With a spineless media, held captive by its advertisers and shareholders, there’s no way ordinary people can be kept properly informed - the effect of this silence gives people the impression that nothing bad is actually happening 'out there', because whatever is happening isn’t worth reporting on.

It might seem incredible that educated and otherwise well informed people know so little about cruelty to farm animals, but it isn’t that surprising when you think of how much conflicting information there is. How can anyone, by themselves, sort out what is true and what isn’t? Whether the cruelty they see examples of are isolated cases or routine on every farm? Without trustworthy reporting, how can anyone know whether the food we eat is safe or unhealthy? Most people eventually give up trying to find out, and revert to habit.

What we so badly need is one high profile, respected and brave journalist, who’ll reveal not only the scale of animal cruelty but the cover-up which, in itself, would be the bigger and more shocking story, because it involves the duping of the public on a massive scale and over a long period of time.

There have been stories published about specific atrocities such as the live export of animals, and there are many organisations who have 'outed' factory farming, but none have had the courage or resources to expose the much bigger problem concerning the entire animal industry. None ever attempt to comprehensively expose the cruelties, and combine it with warnings of the widespread health risks associated with consuming animal protein. The story is just too big. It would be considered too ambitious, to make such a broad condemnation. It wouldn't be approved for publication, nor would it have the support of the general community which makes so much use of so many animals. This is why, perhaps, the time is not yet ripe for such a writer to surface.

If and when the complete story is told, it might be a bombshell which most people wouldn't be able to handle. Fear keeps things under wraps, with no one wanting the truth to come out so completely, in case the whole supply chain is affected. As soon as the delicate balance between supply and consumption wobbles, prices go up and ordinary people are forced to pay more than they can afford for what they want, or they have to do without. Better not to rock the boat.

If the story were to be told, it might start with the disastrous health consequences of animal food. The latest World Health Organisation report, linking processed meat and red meat with cancer, is scary enough but it's likely to be soon forgotten. It will probably be argued out of existence, although for some, it will start them thinking seriously about the dangers, and will create some sort of impact. But I suspect the real impact of any story about food and cancer and animal abuse, if it ever gets to be told fully, will concern the scale of the cover-up, and therein the loss of faith in the people we've always relied on to keep us informed and keep us safe. It seems that even if they are capable of telling the whole story, they won't do so out of a fear for their own careers and their own lifestyle. Can you imagine the brave journalist writing the full truth, painting themself into a corner, and then having to abide by the conclusions of their own words?

I think it’s that which could ultimately outrage people - that they’d been kept in the dark for so long by the very people whose intentions had always been to continue misinforming the general public, with the intension to do so for many generations to come. 

Move to Activism

1529: 

Animal activists make it their business to look where others don’t care to.  When I visited my first intensive farm and my first abattoir, straight away everything changed for me.  What I saw turned me vegan, and I knew if others saw what I saw, whether at first hand or via video footage, they’d react as I did; they’d be outraged enough to change their eating habits.  With that sort of evidence, it would be enough for them to boycott the whole Industry’s products.  But I was wrong.  When all this was receiving mass exposure in the 1980s, what a shock I got when I saw that there was NO great surge of compassion.

This more than anything made me wonder about people, particularly about parents, politicians, preachers and pedagogues.  Now, some decades later, I’m still wondering why they aren’t telling the kids the truth about animal farming.  It’s not that they don’t know, it’s just that they don’t want to know, or more particularly, they don’t want the kids to know for fear of it reflecting badly on them.

         

As I moved into adulthood, or at least into a state of independence (buying my own clothes, preparing my own meals), I began to focus on the job in hand.  The shock was gone and I was moving on from the easier game of blaming ‘those who didn’t tell us’, to the much more difficult work of activism via communication.

Activism shouldn't waste energy on blame.  The fact is that, to some extent, we’ve all got blood on our hands. But as activists we don't have time to waste.  We should be looking where others don’t look and make sure we respond appropriately to what we discover.  If we see how the pig is forced to live, then drop pork; if we see how the battery system operates, then drop eggs; if we see the abattoir in operation, then drop everything that has a face – that’s vegan principle in operation.  And once our own life has been cleaned up, then it's time to tell this story to others.

As adults with free choice, we should make a study of the faces of animals.  If you look into their eyes you will see a downtrodden look of resignation.  Then take a look at the face of an animal at the abattoir, being led into the execution chamber.  It’s an unforgettable face of despair.  And this is the terror that the carnivore condones or ignores; this is a reflection of the lengths they'll go to, to get a taste of animal flesh or secretion.

When I first saw the faces of captive animals, in zoos, on farms, or in laboratories, it was enough to stop me in my tracks, make me check my habits, make me boycott, make me plant-base all my food and clothing, and then move on to activism.

         

So, what is activism?

         

For some time, for me, it was a huge project - changing my food habits, changing my choice of shoes and jumpers and blankets, but later, when diet was resolved and shoes and clothes sorted out, I looked deeper.  I saw something even sadder than the waste and cruelty.  It was my own loss of faith in human nature, and that, not anger, began to fuel my activism ever since.

Giving up on human nature, not seeing the potential in people, is ultimately sad.  The one spark of hope comes from some of the turned-on youth of today, who are moving away from all this cruelty and waste, and becoming vegan and pro-active animal advocates.

If you go down to the farm, today ...

1528: 

Whether predator or predated, an animal is a free-spirited creature and a self-feeding, social being.  It isn’t interested in being confined inside concrete and steel constructions or in helping to feed humans or in making our lives more comfortable.  But to many humans a free animal is an animal wasted - a waste of good money.  For those who earn their living from farming them, it means nothing to have them incarcerated and eventually killed - they’re just a resource to be exploited.

Every customer of animal products helps to support that way of seeing animals.  Many humans say they love animals, but almost all connive at hurting them, by supporting those who take away their freedom of movement and take away their lives.

In a way, what we do to animals we do to ourselves.  We sell our souls to keep ourselves fed, or more particularly over-fed with the rich foods, that eventually end up making us ill and killing us.  Our addiction to these foods makes us demand low prices.  So, in response to customer demand, if the farmer wants to stay in business, he cuts every corner he can - he only keeps them alive as long as he can maximise profits from them.  He has no qualms about letting them suffer.  If it means cutting off animals’ tails, horns, beaks and testicles for the purposes of easier management, then that’s what is done.  Some are enclosed behind barbed wire fencing, some are put behind bars, some are encased in glass boxes as exhibits at zoos.  'Domesticated' animals are caged, tethered, immobilised and generally reduced to the status of a ‘production machine’. And yet it’s strange how we also romanticise them (mainly for the purposes of engaging children’s interest, or hoodwinking them).  The farm animal is part of the rural idyll.  We like to see them ‘contentedly grazing’ in the paddocks.  We do NOT like to notice the barbed wire that confines them.

It’s even worse for those animals kept indoors, where they are subjected to an entirely unnatural existence, imprisoned in sheds and cages, subjected to artificial lighting and inadequate ventilation.  The general public is not privy to the conditions under which they are held - and we are never introduced to the equipment used for mutilating them or for cutting bits out of their bodies.  We never hear the sizzle of skin under red-hot branding irons.  We never take much notice of the double tiered trucks on the highway, filled with animals being transported to the abattoir.  We’re no more aware of their fate than the animals are themselves.

On the farms and especially on factory farms, the psychological torment suffered by the animals is indisputable.  But we city folk know almost nothing about any of this.  And we don't make it our business to find out.  We remain ignorant of it or pretend to be.  We most of us rarely go to the country to visit farms or if we do, we only see the charm of the farm buildings nestling amongst trees, surrounded by green paddocks (along with those 'contented', grazing animals).  It's not difficult to suspend our disbelief as we take all this in and breathe in fresh country air.  It would be impossible to suspend anything if we ever got to see inside the sheds or breathe the foul stench or hear the cries of the animals there.  

If we ever do get to see, mainly via TV, how the animals are kept, even then we might not make the connection between ourselves and these fellow sentients - we don't immediately realise that the food we'll eat for dinner comes from a place like this.  Even when we do know about it, we don’t react, because our mind is set to see nothing wrong going on.  If we're in the countryside, it is a day out or a holiday, so we're not there for anything but pleasure. Any curiosity is not encouraged by the farmer.  No one is allowed (for bio-security reasons!!) to enter these farms, let alone check out conditions.  It's the same with abattoirs.

         

If you go down to the farm today you’re in for a big surprise.  If you ever get inside one, it would certainly be a case of ‘once seen never forgotten’. 

Getting ethical

1527: 

Who authorises what we do and how we think and what we eat, when we’re young?  Kids Have to follow adults, who give their children the same advice they were given themselves, as youngsters, which is always based on the principle of ‘Mum knows best’ or ‘Doctor knows best’.

Thankfully youth rebels.  And some break away from the gravitational pull of convention.  But for others, the pleasure instinct is too strong.  Social convention becomes so predominant, that when it comes to our food choices not many changes ever get made.

If certain lines of education are followed, tradition might be rejected on philosophical grounds. If right and wrong becomes an important field of study, then ethics might trump pleasure.  Then there will be a solid basis from which our own more ethical decisions can be made.

         

I think the philosophy behind veganism comes out of a deep enough instinct to place animal-based foods into question.  It won’t tell us what to eat but it will certainly tell us what NOT to.

From a plant-based platform, underscored by a non-violent approach to everything else we do, food choices become more straight forward.  By outlining what NOT to eat, vegans don’t usually become obese or develop ill health, because of the diet they are now following.  Rubbish food and fast food are automatically filtered out.  By avoiding rich snacks, cakes and confections, along with the usual animal secretions and of course meat itself, the body isn’t exposed to the saturated fats, cholesterol, high salt and sugar contents so characteristic of animal foods and foods made with animal ingredients. When health concerns mix with ethical concerns, it's not only food choices but other commodity choices that change.

Although we might miss out on fashion gear such as leather goods, wool, silk and fur, it’s a fact that we are no longer being lured by many items of expensive merchandise.   Our feet might get wet from wearing fabric shoes or in the cold weather we may have to wear a few more layers of cotton or linen, and that might be inconvenient, but when you think of the suffering we save the animals - the loss of the sheep’s own woollen coat or the cow’s own skin, and therefore not being party to their suffering.

         

For omnivores, life is made messy from taking part in the business of the Animal Industry.  If you feel ashamed of abattoirs and cages and barbed wire, you can break free of it all by becoming vegan.  Our own instinctive compassion is the best ethical guide here - if what we buy hurts animals we have no justification for buying it in the first place. 

An egg starter to numb the conscience

1526: 

So here’s the state of things at present.  We have billions of humans eating foods produced by animals, unwilling to consider the feelings of those animals.  Perhaps they’re pushing animal welfare and animal rights onto the back burner, because they’re more concerned with other issues.  Perhaps there are more immediate matters to be concerned about, like money, family, careers, global warming, ill health, etc.  There’s so much to think about today, and with no relief in sight.  The unsolvable problems of life could become, for any of us, overwhelming, depressing and a cause of discomfort.  So, we open the fridge and choose our favourite food as a pick-me-up.

Food is as much a matter of pleasure as sustenance.  It diverts us.  And despite the negative health pay-back, we continue to use whatever food is sure to lift our spirits, even though we're aware of serious implications surrounding some foods, which we ought to be taking into consideration before using.

Food isn’t just food, and isn’t just something to experience.  If it involves killing and abuse, we are in need of some serious conscience-numbing, because we know that something about it isn't quite right.  We might pretend we haven’t thought about it.  But we all know what happens down the road, at the abattoir.  So it seems that we need a way of accepting the dark side, if we want to keep our fridges stocked with all those yummy articles which make our dinner table attractive and are guaranteed to lift our mood.

From early in the morning, down at the abattoir, the killing has already begun, as we lie asleep in bed.  While we’re eating our breakfast egg, can we hear the screams of the panicked animals as they’re being led to the slaughter?  I doubt it, since the killing takes place a long way off.  Can we imagine what’s going on then?  Or can we remember what we saw on TV, the egg dropping from a live bird, caged on some squalid battery farm?  Perhaps.  But do we want to exercise our imagination that way?  As we crack the shell of our breakfast egg, it’s not likely we're thinking of the hen.  Instead, we’re thinking of the taste of the egg or the feeling of filling our stomach with what we eat, with what we've always eaten for breakfast.  And when there are no more eggs left in the carton, that's not a problem.  A new carton is bought.  And so the cycle continues.

Even less obviously, in our cupboard there are other products, which seem quite benign.  But on closer inspection they too are suspect, because they are made with egg-ingredients.  These are appetising products which are much easier to justify because the ingredients are so much less obvious.

So here’s where we stand: we see the cruelty (on TV) and forget it, because it’s inconvenient to bring to mind - we want our eggs, and when we’re ‘out’, we’ll soon be buying more of the same.  And as we slip into the habits of daily life, we’ll be thinking less and less about what we’re doing.

Small children are good at imagining - they often express horror at the way animals are treated (they see the same footage on TV as we do).  They often want to say something, but at each meal their resistance is slowly worn down.  Then, at a certain later stage in their young life, their empathy is reignited.  Their conscience wakes from a long sleep.

Young people have a much cleaner slate than adults.  They’ve got more excuse, since they’ve never had any real freedom to choose their own food.  Their conscience is clearer, if only because guilt hasn’t bitten so deeply.  And it follows that, as their independence develops, they’re freer to experiment with new foods, and move away from the habits of their parents’ generation, even to the extent of trying out a vegan diet.

         

If an adult will not consult their conscience, over the eating of animals or enquiring about animal by-products, then the conscience weakens to the point where the senses will take over.  Cravings and 'wanting' will begin to call the shots until, when too late, health starts to go down the tube.  Simply, by not weighing the rights and wrongs, not making food-choice decisions for ourselves, eating without question what our parents fed us, we continue on until a dangerous habit forms and takes hold.  At the time, it’s easier to do what others do, easier to follow the crowd. But by the time we reach middle age, the irreparable damage is done.  

Wanting

1525: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Because omnivores are so focused on wanting animal products, they won't listen to what vegans have to say.  We can scream all we want about animal cruelty and health issues, but we really know we're looking at a deep-seated fear (often unexpressed) that some serious illness awaits people who exclude animal products from their lives.  These 'animal users' prefer to gamble with their health rather than give up the things they like.  Take people with heart disease who are facing surgery.  They might have avoided the damage altogether just by not clogging up their arteries with fat-saturated animal-derived foods.  But they didn't.  They continued wanting (and getting) non-plant based foods and then just let the hospital system deal with their problem later.  

            

So vegans have two jobs.  To show that plant foods can be attractive enough (and healthy enough) to live on without needing animal products and to convince food addicts that prevention is better than cure.  We need to inspire on the one hand and warn on the other.  And that's before we get down to the serious business of trying to prevent the ethical damage involved in the torturing and killing of innocent animals!!  

        

Those people who are most obstinate are the most food-seduced.  They believe they're unable to go without animal-based foods.  It's not just a matter of nutrition.  It's a matter of 'habit'.  And getting out of the habit is easier said than done for most people. 

         

Before reaching adulthood, most of us are powerless to change our eating habits.  In this respect, parents are guilty of feeding their children addictive, harmful and unethical foods.  When kids grow up and start feeding themselves, they soon get hooked on the fast-food version of what Mum or Dad used to cook for them.  Weight creeps up and a 'live-now-pay-for-it-later' mentality sets in.  Kids aren’t warned about the dangers of addiction, so effectively, Mum and Dad turn out to be the kids' drug dealers.

 Like the use of narcotics (or anything else that’s stimulating but difficult to give up) animal foods are in our daily lives from the get-go.  And with such a great variety of these mildly addictive products on the market, many of them are as difficult to shake off as any of the classic abuse-substances.  Once we’re in the grip of these products, there seems to be no way out, especially when we see almost everyone else in the same grip.

Because animal foods are addictive (not in quite the same way as narcotics, but addictive all the same) then the taste of them, the thought of them and the low cost of them, make people determined to get them.  It may be a burger or a chocolate confection or a quiche, but every day that 'hunger' leaves its mark.  For the wealthy 'Westerner' there’s no thought of doing without these foods.  The very idea of giving up a favourite food because of the link with animal suffering or ill health consequences, is unthinkable.  In fact animal welfare (let alone animal rights) is something to which most people never give a thought.  But when they do, they're well on their way to becoming vegan. 

Cause for Anger?

1524: 

Whenever eating animals come into the conversation there’s a stony silence, or there’s outright denial of involvement, or ridicule of the animal rights perspective.  Nothing comes up in the conversation that makes very much sense, since people give off such a powerful signal that they “just aren’t interested”.

Our obvious reaction isn’t necessarily very productive.  It’s infuriating when people aren’t interested, and it often brings out ‘the bulldozer’ in us, when we try to break though the stony silence with force.  Usually no one is listening.  But if anyone does listen, they often think we’re exaggerating, and so they maintain a slight disbelief in what we’re telling them.  “Vegans are so weird, it’s likely they’ll be lying too”.  It’s a real Catch 22 for vegans, this one.

So, ‘this one’ is the big challenge.  We need to develop the art of communication as opposed to confrontation.

How do we deal with our own feelings of frustrations at people’s attitudes?  How do we feel, when we write to the media and get rejected?  How do we react to a speciesist remark from talk-back radio?  How do we deal with being laughed at?

Public resistance to what we are saying comes out of a low awareness of what is happening to animals, mixed with a deep fear that such a diet of ‘vegan food’ will be too restricting – this is what scares people into holding such a negative reaction to what we speak about.  It forces them to turn a deaf ear in order to continue the lifestyle they’ve always had.

But if that is sad enough in itself, for us it’s heartbreaking, to see people suffering unnecessary illnesses because they can’t change.  And I guess it’s both the food poisoning and the animal cruelty that make people feel sick and act stupidly, by pretending to believe that cruelty to these farmed animals actually happens, or worse, that if it does happen that it isn’t cruelty at all.

It’s as if people are taking shelter in an absurd flat-earth-denial of sentience itself, holding that the cutting down of an animal is not so very different to the cutting down of a tree. 

Thanks, but I don’t want to know

1523: 

You take any man or woman on the street and ask them if they know what factory farming is.  They’ll squirm and struggle and pretend not to know, even though they probably know all too well.  But this is not likely to happen, since we aren’t likely to bail up strangers on the street, to ask this sort of question - in reality, there won't be much ‘squirming’ going on.

Most people have an ‘awareness filter’ in them, that keeps them comfortably in the dark about the ugly things that have to happen in order to get their 'animal' food to them.  For example, take the egg sitting on the breakfast plate - it might be the first thing they see in the morning - they might be reminded as to how this item has been biologically forced from a hen (most often confined to a cage).  At lunch we may get another reminder, as we cut into a steak, that it comes to us from a castrated bullock, whose private parts have been subjected to the knife at an early age.  Whatever animal is used for food or clothing, has its throat cut, when no longer needed alive.  And fish are no better off, being suffocated and crushed to death on the decks of fishing boats.

Farmed animals are never allowed to die a natural death, each having to be put through a terrifying process of execution.  But because it’s done by others, the consumer never has to feel part of that process.  We can’t grieve over what the eye never sees.  And if we don’t have to grieve, we don’t have to care about what happens.  And yet the responsibility of this process lies with the consumer - it’s not the slaughterer’s knife but our dinner knife that is responsible for the killing of the hen, cow, pig or sheep.

         

We might say that we care, but it’s meaningless all the time we eat what we eat.  If we use their by-products, the animals must eventually be put to death, no differently than those whose carcasses we consume.  We, the consumer, are in cahoots with the farmer in this, caught up in the whole cycle of routine violence, and unable to detach from it because we are trapped by our own food habits.  In a kinder world, these same animals could be precious objects of care, never abused, and allowed to live out their natural span of life (which is many times longer than they are allowed to live under present ‘farmed’ conditions).

         

Look at this from the individual animal’s point of view.  Take an egg-laying hen’s life - there’s nothing natural left in it, she only ever knows loneliness and pain.  She’s mutilated, roughly handled, imprisoned in a small prison cell, with no sunlight, no fresh air, no soil, no plant life, no natural sounds and no mother.  All she does have is plenty of food, enough to make her more productive.

         

For her whole assigned life (a period of some eighteen months whilst her body menstruates and she can lay her daily egg) there’s pain.  Her life experience is one of being caged in a tiny no-room-to-move space, with two or three other hens.  Her whole existence is spent standing on a mesh-wire floor, breathing ammonia from the excreta of thousands of other birds who also live in the shed.  She only ever experiences synthetic lighting, the din of screeching, demented fellow hens, she has an inability to move, and of course no chance of escape.  This tormented, imprisoned state is what consumers support every time they eat an egg, or buy a product made with eggs in it.  Is it any wonder vegans are so outraged, not only by the cruelty of it all but by the indifference of our fellows, who have the gall to say, “I don’t want to know”.

The Animals' Gaolers

1522: 

These huge populations of 'domesticated' animals - what is happening to them?  Well, obviously nothing is happening for them, that’s for sure.  To their minders (the farmers) animal health and welfare doesn’t seem to be of much concern, unless it affects the economic viability of the animal.  As soon as Daisy is no longer able to produce enough to earn her board and lodging, she’s sent off to the abattoir.

There is no relationship between the consumer and the animal except as it is between slave-master and slave, which amounts to no relationship at all, leastways not a pleasant one for the animal.  Perhaps her slavery is even more pernicious than human slavery ever was, since unlike her human counterpart, she has no way of dealing with the torment of her situation.  She has no ability to plan any sort of escape.  Her every ‘now’ moment must be empty, especially as her minders are crueller and more indifferent than ever before, since they themselves are ever more desperate to extract all they can from their animals, to keep themselves in business.

The difficulty the farmer has of turning a profit is compounded by the vast numbers of consumers demanding low-priced foods.  That means providing accommodation at the very lowest cost per animal.  If customers want low prices, they’re likely to buy imported goods if they’re cheaper than the home-produced variety.

         

Where does the finger of blame point?

Everyone who spends money on animal food and clothing is responsible for the situation.  But apart from the evils of slavery and our buying and eating animal-based foods, there’s the prospect of ethics (and fashion) nagging at the outcome, and eventually interfering with supply; which is when the customer starts to suffer from unfulfilled cravings.

So, by 'putting off until tomorrow what should be done today', and remaining uninformed about ‘methods of modern animal husbandry’, the ordinary consumer isn’t alerted let alone challenged.  They’re not so very different to the shareholder of an arms manufacturer, who doesn’t want to know what the weapons will be used for.  There is no interest in the provenance of the goods and services they buy, if it might seem to make them complicit with immoral business. And so there’s no wish on their part to share the responsibility for what goes on behind the scenes.

Free Plenty

1521: 

Change happens when we have a majority making it happen, both by way of moral outrage or fashion change.  If fashion is the main driver, then when the majority are ready to change they'll do so, and coincidentally send the ‘animal businesses’ broke.   I doubt if we'll witness an upsurge of ethical maturity, nor see a legal change happen.  Perhaps that follows later.   More likely it will be a saunter towards avoiding being uncool, just like any other fashion change.   When something goes out of fashion it starts to look odd, and then ugly.  And as the ‘yuck-factor’ kicks in, so will animal foods be seen to be absurd, and then they'll become too expensive or just no longer available.  Plant-based foods will push them off the shelves.

If fashion dictates it, habits will change, but never in a suicidal way; we will always want to look after our safety, and this will coincide with having enough arable land to make a vegetarian choice more realistic.  Obviously there are communities who are solely dependent upon animal foods for their survival because they simply can’t grow crops to eat, because they have no suitable soil, or the climate is too harsh for manageable plant growth.  But for us, there are no excuses.  We've fallen for the want it-must have it habit.  So often for us, all sources of food are plentiful, but most people have adopted this unfortunate habit which makes them go for animal.

With those who can't grow crops, this matter of using animals for food is just as relevant to them as it is to us, but with one big difference, they have far less choice, and are living in an age where animal rights consciousness hasn't reached them.  So this is not just about animals, and hurting them, killing them and eating them (which is a huge issue in itself) but about reasons why humans are acting negatively when they could be acting positively - when there is a realistic choice available.

This is surely one of the most interesting characteristics of our age - the psychological impact of plenty on we Westerners and Easterners and everyone else who live in fertile zones of the planet.  Our societies have become seduced with the 'free plenty' of exploitable animals, instead of the free plenty of plants, and all the miraculous foods and fabrics that can be made from them.  This is all about the psychology of preference.  And to some of us, it seems like a very gung-ho attitude which is not so very far from being entirely unintelligent.  It's that preference which we can identify as the Voluntary-Omnivore, a person who will never allow themselves any quality of connection with life, because they are, daily, in cahoots with killers.

How sad.

So, morally the islanders and desert dwellers and ice-shelf livers may have a case to argue.  But there is nothing here that applies to the majority of communities around the world, where people have access to abundant plant foods.  The question arises then, as to why anyone would want to poison their bodies with animal protein or live with the shame of killing countless animals, simply out of a somewhat juvenile preference for free plenty. 

Obstinate to the core

1520: 

A vegan’s conscience is outraged at the very idea of slavery and particularly the obstinacy of thinking that we can’t survive unless we enslave animals.  It’s reminiscent of the ending of human slavery in USA, when they predicted inevitable collapse of the cotton and sugar industries if slavery were abolished – but the industries survived and went on to thrive.  Soon enough, the idea of enslaving humans became repugnant and then illegal.

It could be the same with animal slavery.  We can survive and thrive without eating animals or using their by-products, or co-products like leather.  We can also be happy and healthy without being clothed or entertained or medicated at the expense of animals.  But that isn’t something that's believed by most people.  It isn’t even taken seriously.  And that’s our great challenge.  Once we humans drop our animal dependency, we can address the other major problems still facing the world, such as war, disease, pollution and hunger.

As humans, we have the ability to learn from our mistakes, but we don’t. And it stems from our obstinacy.  We have inherited, from earlier generations, some very easily solvable problems, the most damaging of which is our use and abuse of animals.  We are held back by a collective reluctance to deal with the matter of animal slavery.  Instead of challenging ourselves to work with Nature, we seem to be content to remain the slave masters of animals, and that seems to have worked out to our advantage.  We seem to have got away with it so far.  But that might mean that the thief has been identified but hasn’t been caught yet.  We are still enjoying a tentative freedom, but for how long?  And what quality is such a ‘freedom’?

         

A compassionate society can’t grow whilst any sort of widespread slavery exists, and none is more widespread than animal slavery.  Stepping further, the only chance humanity has of surviving, let alone progressing, is by giving up bacon on the breakfast table and leather on our feet and aquariums full of captured sea creatures.  The lot must go if we want to move on.

Connecting with animals

1519: 

Most humans don’t give much thought to anything but their own life-quality.  To them, the idea of liberating animals is pie in the sky, since the animal trade is so entrenched in our culture.  It seems absurd to try to interfere with such a tradition.  But there are those of us who want to interfere with it, to bring it to the surface and into consciousness, in order to set off a fundamental change in our thinking.  If such a change is to occur, it would only be brought about not by some animal welfare reform but by an attitudinal reform, pitched to a higher plane of consciousness.

Surely, what we are all trying to do is to connect with the people and the world around us, and with our own true nature.  But in practice it may not work out that way, if we follow the examples set by those whose job it is to influence us when young.  Unless we set out to question what they teach us about right and wrong.

The teacher, inspired by 'connecting', takes her students to the zoo, but by taking them she implies that it’s all above board.  Most children will be glad of the outing, and be prepared to accept what they're offered.  But what if the kids kick up a fuss about the caging of animals?  What can the teacher say?  Behind her stands the institution of the zoo, which makes itself look as if it’s only interest is in the conservation of endangered species.  When kids ask questions about the individual animal’s life in this imprisoned state, when they condemn the animals' lack of freedom, how can the teacher respond?  They may have to be fobbed off, since she was inspired by her wish for the students to 'connect with animals', to see the animals who are part of the world we all live in.  That's her reason for organising the zoo-visit.

The same goes with almost any of our intentions to 'connect' with animals.  We would dismiss a hunter’s professed 'love of nature' as mere hypocrisy, as a smoke-screen behind which he can continue to have his fun.  If you are not a hunter yourself, you'd have no trouble condemning hunting, but it's not that much different to the attitude that allows animals to be imprisoned and killed for food.

Whether it's hunting or zoo-visiting, it's a perversion of the idea of connecting with animals. Would ‘people wanting to connect’ be the primary reason they visit the zoo?  I know that people walking around the zoo are not sadistically revelling in the animals’ discomfort, but at the same time they aren’t empathising with the animals either. They aren’t asking how the lion feels. Indeed, they may well be saying, “Who cares what the lion feels?”.  But there’s the rub.

How is it that we do something which hasn’t been thought through empathetically?  In today’s consciousness-raised atmosphere, why is an animal’s perspective not relevant or important?  If we can accept that zoo-prisons are okay places to visit, isn’t that rather worrying? Isn’t that a sign that we really ought to be trying to interfere with a culture that encourages children to accept such a warped and one-sided connection with the animal? 

Live now, pay later

1518: 

The real friction between non-vegans and vegans is that what they relish we avoid.  They still enjoy animal foods and wearing animal clothing, whereas we avoid it like the plague.  Our advantage is that we can speak-out about animal treatment but they can’t, even if they wanted to.

Our main emphasis is on sentience - most people probably don’t even know what the word means or how significant it is, whereas if you’re sensitive to the plight of domesticated animals you’d know its meaning very well.  To us, the mistreatment of an innocent, sentient creature is obscene.  The easy availability of animal over centuries of tradition have brought billions of animals into slavery.  It's become such a routine habit for humans that it is largely un-thought-about.  Omnivores don’t actually think what is done to animals is bad.  And even if they did they mustn’t, otherwise they couldn’t be omnivores any longer.

Omnivores have to sit in the ‘quiet corner’.  The only satisfaction for them is to take full advantage of what’s on offer, and in consequence they are, in a very important way, subservient to The System.  That might be morally bad enough but it's also self-abuse.

Eating animals and their various secretions may give people lots of present-time enjoyment but it usually, eventually, means a lot of chronic stomach and digestive problems.  If you still eat animal produce you’re sure to be wrecking your body, as if by slow poisoning.  And what a waste!  To disqualify your body from working properly, plus denying yourself the chance to be an agent of peace in the world, seems sad.  To hold back on both counts because of a food attachment or insisting on having feet bound in leather, is a high price to pay for something so unnecessary.

To a greater or lesser degree, most people have got blood on their hands and plenty of poison in their bodies, simply by ingesting animals’ body-parts on a daily basis.  By consuming the concentrated toxins from these foods plus the adrenaline surge at the point of an animal’s execution, we weaken our immune system.  Vegans say, “Keep off the stuff if you want to maintain good health (and a clear conscience)”.

I suppose it’s safe to say that by being vegan, I’d automatically be avoiding many of the crap foods and treats on the market, as if I was no longer living under a 'tastebud dictatorship'.  Personally I worry about the ethics of those who aren’t avoiding crap food, but it’s not only food but shoes and zoos and thousands of other goods and services provided by our animal slaves that demean us.  By using animals we lose our best chance for a truly meaningful life, and we’re in very real danger of suffering years of chronic health disorders and dying unfulfilled too.

Animal ‘use’ is always abuse

1517: 

If we aren’t ready to move on, towards being vegan, we must lump ourselves in with the meat heads - as animal consumers at any level, it prevents us from condemning the abuse of farmed animals.  If we don’t eat meat but still use animal by-products, we're still involved in the same level of cruelty.

If you’re not vegan you can hardly be an advocate for animal rights, unless you want to sound hypocritical.  By the same token, the onus is on vegans to take up animal-advocacy, otherwise it would take the emphasis off the animals being abused and become about something to do with our own health.  

If we aren’t a vegan for ethical reasons, we can never play a part in animal liberation, let alone the world-wide-awakening of consciousness.  To rule ourselves out of that process might leave us with not a lot of meaning left in our life, simply because we’re still so subservient to The System.  If we can’t leave it, if we can’t change it, and if we’re unable to condemn it because we also condone it, we’re effectively hand-tying ourselves. We leave ourselves no room to manoeuvre.  Most people have to put up with what is second best, conforming to the traditional-way.  And then, all we can do is divert ourselves with pleasures like entertainment and eating.  The energy expended on seeking pleasure might be better used to help end waste and cruelty.

By doggedly remaining omnivores, we’re denying ourselves a better source of satisfaction.  If we don’t advocate for animals (and we at least owe them that!) we’re effectively taking on the role of ‘gaoler’, and retreating back into a fun world that is the province of the developmentally immature - a poor substitute for more meaningful, goal-oriented activities.

At the end of the day, might there not be a feeling that we could have done better with our day? We may not experience twenty four hours of pure ecstasy, but isn’t it better to lie down to sleep, knowing that we've done our best to minimise harm? 

Conformity loses the sense of our own greatness

1516: 

The ugliest representation of human society is in what we do (without thinking a second thought) to countless animals.  We focus on ourselves, ignore the effect we have on anything that is not done purely for the sake of 'human benefit'.  But by saying this is to denigrate virtually everyone, as if I’m standing in the middle of a football crowd and shouting, “Football stinks”.  What Animal Rights advocates are saying looks like one gigantic insult, levelled at the largest number of people imaginable.

But that's what we are trying to turn around, by saying, “Yes, it’s wrong.  It’s all so unnecessary. It’s the height of cruelty, to enslave and abuse animals.  It ought to stop”.  In saying that, we also realise that this won’t initially attract anyone.  We must come up with something more acceptable, otherwise it remains an insult and is neatly put down as being only that.

The meat-eater, the zoo-visitor, the animal-skin-shoe-wearer, all have to be made aware of what exactly they're involved with.  But being judgemental about other people's values is not helpful.  We each have sensitivities in different areas, and those who’re sensitive to the animals’ plight are bound to speak up on their behalf - but we're not trying to be gratuitously insulting.  It's quite possible that, as animal advocates, we may be less sensitive in some other areas. All of us know our strengths and yet disagree about important matters. I can see greatness in most every person I meet (because I choose to go looking for it) but I don’t conjure it out of thin air. I actually see it because I can’t miss it. Because this potential intelligence and sensitivity is in all of us.  But if you don’t consciously go looking for it, it will go unnoticed.  And we all want to be noticed.  We all want to feel special in some way.  We none of us like to be criticised for what we do. We prize our freedom to choose the best outcomes for ourselves.  On the one hand we deny our own greatness and on the other hand we want it.  

Both denial and desire play a part in our own development. If we feel judged, it slows or halts our sense of making progress. And when progress doesn’t seem to be happening, the great danger is that we eventually give up and settle for conformity.  Our greatness is allowed to wither, along with our most valuable asset of intelligent sensitivity.  Out of desperation, we become narcissistic and ego-driven. And we pass that onto our offspring, so that when kids are asked what they want to be when they grow up they say “famous”, which probably means they just want to be thought of as ‘great’, because they can feel the potential of greatness within themselves.

But as the reality of this fades, they lose touch with the 'greater part of themselves'. They lose their ability to make their own original decisions.  They become 'we'.  We cave in to the many second-rate sensual pleasures, many of which include robbing animals of their lives to enhance the meaning and enjoyment of our own lives.  We find ways of turning a blind eye, numbing our empathy, squashing our individual thinking and instincts.  We say, “If others can do it, it must be okay for me to do it”.  And we become the willing followers of those who seem to have it all, namely those we regard as 'great and powerful'.  But, as it happens, many of the ‘emulated’ are not so very great after all - they seem to concentrate on feathering their own nests and fail to set a good example.

         

So Dad takes the kids to the zoo, and sets them in front of majestic lions, locked behind bars, and says “me human: you animal ... me great: you nothing but banged up prisoners”.  Then everyone has a good laugh about it and feels momentarily 'great', if only because we are un-caged humans who have the power to cage these beautiful creatures.

         

This doesn’t really make us feel ‘great’ for very long, but at least in the eyes of our children (who we’ve taken to the zoo) it makes us feel a whole lot better about ourselves. We’re momentarily popular with the kids.  We’re ‘special’ to them.  And they're very free with praise - "Great Dad".

Abolitionism and greatness

1515:

The very idea of putting another human into slavery is abhorrent but we do it to animals without a second thought.  We empathise with other humans because they’re just like us, but animals aren’t anything like us, so we don’t see them as individuals but collectively.  Each is part of a whole and not much more.  They’re rather like furniture - beautiful to look at or useful to us, but of not much importance in and of themselves.  An animal doesn’t even have a soul, so we say!

We’re so used to seeing imprisoned animals in paddocks or in cages at the zoo that we don’t see the ugliness.  In fact we see them as if living in natural conditions, and we regard both countryside and zoos as places that are fun to go to.  Kids love to see animals wherever they may be, especially when their appearance is guaranteed, unlike wild animals which are often not visible.  Adults don’t tell children that there’s anything wrong with these places.

Is it any wonder that all this needs to be brought into consciousness?  The principle of ‘abolitionism’ highlights this gaoling instinct humans have, concerning animals.

Our attitudes have been high-jacked, our thoughts are not our own, your mum, your friend, your doctor, your teacher, almost everyone has lost touch with their natural empathy for these imprisoned creatures.  We no longer hold opinions of our own because we have so thoroughly been manipulated?

We accept and support what is certainly the worst thing imaginable for the animals themselves - the torture of lifelong captivity, ending in a brutal execution.  And we 'manipulated' humans accept this wholesale, routine mass-murdering of animals.  Peaceful, harmless and completely innocent creatures.  Sentient creatures, like us.  Out thinking that it’s all okay is like thinking  child-molesting is okay.

The numbers of animals-in-slavery are greater than there are humans alive on the planet.  Animals are our slaves, and we’ve become so used to it that we no longer see what it really is.  It’s not until we consciously imagine what it must be like for them that we can see how we are hurting them.  And for what?  For the sake of a food that we no longer have any need for, only a desire for.

The pleasure-heads

1514: 

Those who make a living out of animals aren’t likely to recognise the need for animals to be protected by 'rights'.  But for the general consumer, they're simply held by food preferences.  It's amongst these that exist some hope.  From these, the Animal Rights Movement potentially finds support.

If the hard-hearted animal abusers hate the influence of the Animal Rights movement, it’s because of the potential threat to their livelihoods.  They’re not only committed meat-eaters themselves but they earn their living from the Industry.  Animals are a matter of economic concern not a challenge to ethics - it’s bank accounts before moral accountability, pragmatics before ideals.

People who are more sympathetic to the liberation of animals, despite having a foot in both camps, are the ones we'd be trying to persuade, suggesting to them that they boycott what the other lot sell.  Change might come about very slowly, but the tide is turning towards compassion for animals and for better quality nutrition.  A more informed, more sophisticated customer is emerging, who is more discriminating and less attracted to what’s on offer because it all seems to looking dodgy.  

Vegan principle and talk of animals having rights is not good for the Animal Industry, but it’s not only that customers are becoming more conscious of health and compassion, it’s that they’re getting weary of taking things on face value and using attractive-looking animal products that might not be what they appear to be.  Today, as never before, we seek pleasure, but it’s a ‘Seconds-World’ pleasure.  It’s as if we’re squeezing the last life out of the animal-machine, knowing it can’t last much longer, probably realising the time to change is fast approaching.  There's a growing realisation that ill-health is worsening, and that the horror-stories about animal-exploitation aren’t going to go away.  And if we don’t change for ethical reasons then surely economic and ecological factors will eventually force us to change anyway.

While vegans are mindful of what they eat, the omnivores still consume their favourite foods, regardless; we speak firmly about cruelty and ill-health; they firmly disregard what we say because they prefer the foods and clothing and shoes that they're used to.

We might not be able to change that, but we can still direct our message to where it might take best effect.  Our place is with those without vested interests, who’re more likely to listen to what we have to say, who’ll still think their food tastes good, but be more open to the suggestion that other equally interesting tastes and textures exist in plant-based foods.  On that basis alone they may be willing to listen, and shop around and try new things.

         

It’s perhaps the first time in history that the ethical dimension to shopping is being so seriously considered.  And when people realise, to their amazement, that non-animal foods are okay to eat, or are in fact better to eat, they're more likely to be open to eating ‘vegan’ all the time.

The disconnect

1513:

Because the law allows us to exploit animals, it is therefore not a crime.  Whether it’s a zoo which cages exotic animals, or vivisectors cutting up mice or factory farmers enclosing pigs in iron pens, the law says it’s all quite acceptable.

There’s a ‘disconnect’ between our ethics concerning cruelty to animals and our food cravings or need for safe pharmaceuticals. Where most suffering is caused, by the exploitation of billions of captive ‘food animals’, this is where people are most unlikely to make objections. Animal-based foods are central to what is considered to be 'human lifestyle'. It’s these foods to which most of us are addicted, for they're attractive to both the educated-rich and the less well educated-poor. All are seduced equally.

Perhaps the number one impulse for most people is to find food that’s nutritious and enjoyable, but hot on the heels of this impulse comes the associated guilt about animal cruelty, and this makes us hurry to justify what we eat. But the guilt is lessened by the fact that our eating habits are so socially acceptable. Our only constraint is whether we can afford to buy this sort of food – if we can pay the price, we can eat what we like, and it can be enjoyed because rarely, if at all, does anyone have to justify ANY of it to anybody. It seems that for almost all people, the ethical provenance of our food is not a problem - the practice of animal-eating need never bother us.

But there's a problem here that isn't easily fixed. We might want to foster sensitivity in our children, but that very sensitivity can stir things up in a most inconvenient way. As soon as the truth is understood by children, that we are eaters of animals, it does begin to bother those with heightened sensitivity. When these kids first find out about bacon being 'pig' or tender mutton being part of a young lamb, that in itself can be disturbing to a sensitive child. They gradually realise an alarming contrast between the loving kindness of the adults they know and what they see as adult-cruelty in regard to animals. There seems to be an inconsistency here, between the callousness of killing one type of animal and the kindness shown to their own animals at home. Feelings are conflicted. For children, perhaps they smell breakfast bacon cooking, experience their own salivating taste buds, and yet they can’t reconcile that with what they've come to know about 'what happens to animals on farms'.

As usual, reality forces the kids not to complain too much, since their opinions usually hold very little weight. Soon enough, children learn that if they don’t do what they’re told they’ll be denied lots of yummy things – it comes down to them either eating or starving. Children are bribed with food. They’re indoctrinated, from birth, to conform to a 'meat-and-veg' diet. And they know that they must conform, otherwise their significant-adults will be put to all sorts of inconvenience.

So habits roll on, from childhood into adulthood. We don’t bother about investigating everything we put in our mouths. We don’t ask what's behind our food or even if it's worth looking into. We convince ourselves that it's better just to ignore the whole matter altogether. 

Are We All Being Duped?

1512: 

Edited by CJ Tointon

Even though conspiracy theories abound and I laugh at them and call them preposterous, somewhere in my mind I suspect that we are all being 'taken for a ride'. 
Those with vested interests in 'The Animal Industries', whose livelihoods depend upon our buying the products of these industries, can neither care about animals nor their customers' consciences.  They’re buoyed up by politicians, scientists and the media.  These people are often shareholders in the Animal Industries and know not to bite the hand that feeds them.  Each benefits from the other and plays into each others' hands to make money out of the consumer.  If they're peddling unhealthy food, we (the public) allow them.  If they're cruel to animals, we (the public) raise no objections.  

Consumers DO have a choice (albeit a seemingly difficult one) but they seem to have no incentive to choose wisely.  Problem is, it's just too tempting to make NO choice at all!  There's nothing 'illegal' in the way The Industry deals with animals, nor is their selling animal-derived products against the law.  Consequently, animal abusers are getting richer by the minute.  Strange thing is, these people are also 'falling on their own swords'.  Profiteers of the Animal Industries are wealthy enough to 'eat well'. 

This usually means eating rich food and - yes, you've guessed it - lots of animal products!  It's ironic that the same animals that make their wealth, also break their health.  They'd be well advised by the food scientists they employ to avoid eating their products.  These highly trained scientists should know the dangers associated with animal foods - but they're not telling! 
   
You’d think the spiritual leaders of our communities would pounce on the opportunity that the horror stories concerning animal farms and abattoirs provide, to help people save their souls.  But no!  Nothing is ever said!  Perhaps our leaders' and scientists' reputations rely too much on conformity.  They know that if they whistle-blow on animal issues, it would mean social and professional suicide.  So 'conformity-to-the-norm' is a must for them.  If anyone in the Establishment spoke up, there'd be hell to pay!  The scientists would lose their grants, the politicians would forfeit their pre-selections and the priests would be kicked out of their parishes.  Which is why no one is rushing to represent animal interests or promote vegan principles.  You can hear them saying to themselves:  "Get real!  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!"

So the habit of using animals continues with every consumer numbing any empathy they might have had with the edible(?) animal and refusing to look at what's really going on.

An "Alien" Tale

1511:

Edited by CJ Tointon

From the Flight Deck:

"Don't look down now Buddy.  That's Earth.  They're in rehab at the moment.  We know of the problems they're having - even if they don't.  They're going through a bad patch, all sorts of relationship problems - with everything.  They're a very quarrelsome and violent people.  Mark my words - if you value your life, don't even think about going there!" 

Home Planet:

One of my kids said something strange to me the other day - about how 'Earthers' are famous thieves.  I was discussing Earth with her (she's studying it in geography at school) and it just came up in conversation.  "They steal everything", I told her.  "It's how they survive".  And she said something I didn't expect, describing them as just being the way they are.  That got me worried.  She mustn't know all about them yet.  I said to her, "They don't think about how they are. They say they cherish their beloved 'Earth', but you should see the way they treat it!  They're very primitive".  Anyway, my daughter asked me, "Dad, why don't you just go there?  It can't hurt - can it?"

It's funny how innocent kids can be.  I did my best to explain, but I don't think she understood.  How could she?  She can't possibly imagine what these 'Earthers' are like.  To anyone who is sane, the idea of 'going there' would be like jumping into a pit of pythons.

I heard on the news the other day that Earth is struggling in the early stages of rehab.  It's at the 'kicking and screaming' stage.  And I thought to myself, "Yes. They're going through denial but don't know it".  We've all been there, we know what it's like. I wanted to sound a warning for my daughter without frightening her, yet still concealing nothing about the danger of the place.  I explained to her thus:  "They're volatile.  It's like they're living on the edge of a volcano.  They can't see anything through the smoke.  Everything is blurred.  They hope they're safe but can't see if they're not.  They're basically intelligent, but frustrated and angry.  That's what the rehab is for, to help them, to convince them to not always fall back on violence to solve their problems.  But at this stage in their development, they're just plain dangerous!  There's nothing they don't know about killing and being aggressive towards strangers.  So for us to 'go there' would be stupid in the extreme.  They're so jumpy.  They'd buzz bomb any ship without a moment's thought, no question about it."

More importantly I explained to my daughter that we'd 'spook' them too much if we showed up.  Psychologically, it would stir things up to fever pitch.  When you're in such heavy denial, you're not very receptive to new ideas.  Not very receptive to the existence of (let alone the presence of) other 'beings' - especially if they seem brighter than you are.  Just by showing up, we'd knock them off balance.  I can see what would happen.  All seven billion of them would be worrying themselves literally to death, talking of nothing else.  Psychologically, they're at a very vulnerable stage.  They just couldn't handle visitors from 'outside'.  They're sure there's no one 'out there'.  They prefer to think of themselves as alone-in-the-universe  Any other possibility would scare them completely.  "Going there would be like flying into a firestorm.  A very frightening thought".  

I don't think they teach kids anything important at school these days.  Surely everyone knows about Earth?  It's hard to explain to kids when they restrict extraterrestrial news items to the late night shows, mainly the 'Geography' channels.  Too late for my daughter to watch.  But we grown-ups all know about it.  We see pictures of their various scandals.  I told her, "Earth's a place to NOT go anywhere near".  I thought that was obvious.  But it seems it isn't to my daughter and many others. 

The other day I overheard one of my young assistants bragging to his friend about one day 'going to Earth'.  I thought:  "Is he crazy?  Has the boy been raised in a monastery?"  He evidently had no concept.  "Forget that idea", I interrupted.  And then he wants to know,  "What happens there that is so bad?"  

I was tempted to tell him everything.  At this point I could have reeled off a whole list of horrors I knew about, but I feared losing his attention.   I decided to hit him with something really 'heavy'. "THEY IMPRISON, KILL AND THEN EAT ANIMALS". 

He was rendered speechless!!!

Between a rock and a hard place

1510: 

The horror stories about animals in farms and abattoirs horrify and confront all sensitive people, whether vegan or not.  But for omnivores it’s a  mixed message.  “I love animals but I like to eat them, so I don't want to find out too much.”

As soon as we know what’s happening ‘down on the farm’, we realise that it implicates us because of what we eat (or wear).  Almost all of us are implicated in something so routine and on such a massive scale that it seems futile to try to fight it, especially when it seems most people are either cold-hearted or burying their heads in the sand.  Most people just don’t want to know.  The plain fact of the matter is that the 'animal-holocaust' is a daily event, and yet, however horrific it is, it doesn’t make most people step away from their eating habits.

However, vegans have stepped away.  And having done that, we now want to change everyone, not for the sake of their being supportive of us, but being supportive of animals themselves. We have a big task on our hands. To be an animal activist is to be prepared if necessary to act solo, in defiance of family, friends and other social pressures.  To act independently takes courage.  Some would say Animal Rights is an impossible dream.  But what else can we do but try to change the pattern of human violence against animals?

Farm animals (‘food animals’) are badly used, and we know it.  But even though every educated adult, in every part of the world, feels some guilt about it, still they won’t shift.  They possibly know ‘animal-based food’ isn’t healthy and is the product of a cruel and exploitative system, and yet they will not act on this knowledge. The reason for this may be obvious, but nonetheless it’s the never ending question all vegans contemplate - how to get people to take animal cruelty seriously.  What can we do about it?  Until we unlock this particular mystery - why some do respond, why some don’t - our way forward won’t be clear.

If you DO act, if you do respond, you can guarantee that your life will change quite radically.  By being an advocate for the ‘abolition-of-animal-slavery’, one is marked-out as an ‘all or nothing abolitionist’.  And since you can’t be a little bit abolitionist anymore than a woman can be a little bit pregnant, once you’ve said, “I’m vegan-on-principle”, in reality there’s no going back.  Once you’ve faced your cravings, only then can you step out of one world into another.  I don’t mean there’s a Vegan Club-of-Paradise, only that there's a different mind-set and a thunderingly altered perception of things, which, now, I personally wouldn’t want to move away from on any account.

Selling veganism

1509: 

Sometimes, with friends or acquaintances, I get the feeling they want to bring up this matter of Animal Rights to exculpate themselves, and then immediately regret they've done just that.  I can sense it coming sometimes, where the subject is about to be raised. And it's then that I need to know one thing.  One thing about you.  That if I actually do answer your questions or comment on what you've said, that you CAN take the shock of what I am about to tell you.  I admire those who do voluntarily bring up this subject, especially since they almost know what I'm about to say; if they allow me to shock them, they'd be showing great faith in me as a friend, especially since this isn’t the sort of 'permission' they'd give lightly.

Wouldn’t it be awful if people were so naive that they didn’t know that vegans were NOT simply avoiders-of-meat, and for them to wander into an unexpected minefield.  I wonder if, when the penny drops, they would then expect me to shock them, hurt them, embarrass them, make them feel guilty?  For my part, I'd want them to know me better than that.

"No way", I say.  I believe that shocks like that are rarely forgiven.  So, the non-violent way to do all this is ... Well, that’s the eternal question for the vegan animal rights advocate.  But my solution may go something like this: I must have up my sleeve a couple of interesting points, facts, something to catch the attention.  I'm hoping to 'sell' veganism, make it irresistible, and so attractive that they must try it.  And, so the theory goes, in 'trying' it, they'll inevitably get hooked.

For the advocate, full of good intention, the traps are, in order of appearance: it’s too easy to show off; it’s too easy to make sweeping statements; it’s too easy to be outrageous.  At this early stage in Animal Rights consciousness, we probably don’t need to draw that much fire.  We don’t need to make it too easy (for our good omnivore friends) to change the subject.  I never like to get bogged down in fine details, because it avoids dealing with ‘the more up-front, uncomfortable matters’.

As animal activists we won’t be able to satisfy every inquirer’s questions about diet and nutrition and health, although we should try.  However, I reckon our best approach is to appeal to the heart.  The kid in us, who wants to be doing stuff that makes us most happy - that’s our best draw card.  Our job, as vegans, is to assure people of the general safety and health of a plant-based diet, and then move on to explain all the stuff about how animals are treated as machines, etc, sprinkling into the mix of all this difficult-to-digest information something of the fun of being a vegan.  The main attraction boils down to this: “You’d be mad not to try it”.

Eating out

1508:

I go to someone's place, and I’m offered the usual snacks and drinks.  “No thanks”.

         

‘Stunned’ is the best word to describe the reactions I often get.  I’m met with utter incomprehension, when I decline some ‘cheesy-bit’ on a plate, which everyone else has dived into.  If pressed, as soon as I give my reason, I’m labelled weird.  At a social event, someone might race around, to find me something I can eat.  But most people are defenders of the faith, and secretly resent my finicky eating habits, for that’s what they turn this into.

From what could be a simple, “Ah, you’re vegan then”, and a recognition of the significance of the compassion-angle, instead I get irritation, at my being ‘fussy over my food’.  I don’t get asked why I’m fussy, because that would step into dangerous territory.  They'd have to admit to knowing about animal-cruelty and farming practices, and they know to steer well clear of any of that.  So, socially, vegans are a problem.  Just about everyone realises that opening any sort of discussion about that will make them feel uncomfortable.

Those ‘cheesy snacks at the party’, and my refusal, and their wondering if it’s something to do with nutrition and being 'vegetarian' for reasons of health - that's the most familiar line taken.  It is supposed that I would believe “It’s healthier being vegetarian”, and then they might expect to hear about animal-food containing too much fat or sugar or being too high in protein.  What they may NOT expect and certainly DON'T want to hear about is the Animal Rights-angle.  It makes for uncomfortable feelings, talking about ‘hens-in-cages’.

So, as a vegan (as a potentially socially-threatening person) I’m not often asked out.  Or if I am invited, I can be sure not to be asked about the reasoning behind my food choices.  I'm not an especially unlikeable person but, in a potential talk-off, I’d probably be regarded as a social pariah.

I don’t go around looking for a fight with friends (although, I’ll certainly want to stir things up in the public arena, given half a chance).  Amongst friends, I’ll never be the one to bring the subject up.  If anyone else does, then I'll pursue things, but for no longer than their interest holds, or beyond where they’ve finished asking questions.  It’s easy to become a bore on this matter.

For my part I don’t see myself as a punch-bag but nor will I let this subject be trivialised.  I wouldn’t let anyone get away with saying something outrageously contrary to how I see things.  Also, for my part, I hope I’ll never merely report just the bare facts.  However, releasing too much too soon or by becoming too emotional about it all, is a trap.

They know that we know.  And they know that a diet comprising large quantities of animal-based foods, make them fat, and encourages heart disease, diabetes and sometimes cancer.  But as for discussing this, no person in their right mind would go there.  And certainly not when they are eating their favourite foods.  So perhaps it's best I'm not often asked to eat out.