Avoid the vegan message at all costs

858: 

Animal rights and vegan principle is the ONLY subject universally tabooed these days because it’s in everyone’s interest (at least, those who eat animal foods) to keep it x-rated. Farm animal abuse is, after all, a huge covered-up crime. By keeping animal issues out of the limelight everyone can carry on as if nothing bad is happening. It lets them continue to eat animals and their by-products, and to hear no evil and see no evil.

            Take the average self-styled ‘vegetarian’, who isn’t really vegetarian at all because he or she still condones the abuse of animals, who knows full well that animals still have to suffer and die to provide them with their favourite foods. Vegetarians feel exonerated because the flesh of the animal is no longer being eaten by them.

            They are reluctant to admit that ALL animals get the chop, whether they lay eggs, secrete milk or grow wool. Every one of them ends up at the abattoir where they are brutally executed. Apart from kangaroo, non-farmed fish or other hunted animals, every ‘food’ animal is imprisoned for their whole foreshortened life in slum conditions. They are fed poor or even toxic food (which, when ingested by us, go on to cause illness). These ‘food’ animals have to live out confined lives and die ugly deaths simply because people want to eat yummy things and pay a low prices for them.

            For obvious reasons then, it’s in the consumer’s interest not to get too interested in this subject. Better to keep a slack conscience than to start empathising with the animals, because that would logically lead to adopting a vegan lifestyle.

            So, you see what I mean? This is such a tight corner everyone’s in. Not only journalists but teachers, preachers, fathers, mothers, everyone, in every branch of human society, all implicated and all wanting NOT to know. No one wishes to talk about the matter of whether we should be ‘using or not using animals’.

            If our vegan arguments were to be given any weight at all in the media, what precisely would happen to our society? Probably not a lot, because it points to the final humiliating disaster for humankind - that humans are, after all, not humane at all.

This subject shows us for what we are and what we have. The advantages of having such big brains doesn’t make us any kinder, in fact our brains have helped to make us into the cold-hard bastards that we are. And what’s worse, humans are predictably mired in double-think and unable to use their fine intelligence to see things as they really are. We use our brains to operate a sort of ‘forgetting mechanism’, to block out the guilt of knowing something which we’ve seen (via mass media) and yet have done nothing about.

            The trouble is, that the crime is so obvious (even a three year old can see it for what it is) and the Animal Rights movement has woven such a tight argument around it, that no one dares to face it, for fear of being shown up. The reason that the animal advocate might seem so dangerous is that our message is so simple, as if we have a time bomb waiting to go off.

            From the authorities’ point of view, this whole matter must be suppressed. The most repressive dictator couldn’t do a better job on ‘freedom of speech’ than we do here, in our so called free-speech world, by the way we gag this particular uncomfortable truth.

            That’s a rather creepy thought, wouldn’t you say? No one is actually admitting that vegans might just have a case to argue!

Don’t mention the ‘V’ word

857: 

Sadly, no one with any influence in our society will say veganism is right, so as not to dignify it; if it were to be taken seriously or given any attention at all, it could ignite empathy. Then, a craze might start, for people to take on ‘protection of the weak’. This is surely why ‘speciesism’ must always remain a ‘non-subject’ - there must be zero mention of routine animal cruelty in the food industry. And, the health consequences associated with eating animal-based foods is also a no-no. If Animal Rights can remain a non-issue, it will allow food to be discussed only in terms of cuisine and dieting, and then on a fairly superficial level. Without knowing what the word really means beyond the heavy use of animal-based food, the word ‘nutrition’ will be used frequently. Then it’s more likely that the rights of the animals and plant-based foods can be sidelined.

This is the standard side-stepping strategy of the Animal Industries. their aim is always to make a non-issue of animal-based foods and their methods of production. If Animal Rights ever became a serious subject which was regularly written about or discussed on TV and radio, the truth couldn’t be held back. Then, in true counter-attacking style, they’d have to rubbish the subject. And that just might work, since the interests of a misinformed public coincide with the views of the Industry; each want to protect what they value most - the Industry their profits, the people their favourite foods.       

The Animal Industries seek to keep animal rights issues tabooed, by diverting attention away from the ethics of animal treatment and keep it aimed towards other concerns, like the environmental impact of animal farming or even health issues concerning the over-eating of animal products. As bad as that might be, for business, at least it doesn’t open up the Pandora’s Box of ‘animal cruelty’, and all the potentially disastrous empathy it could ignite.

Oh, what a glorious conundrum we have here - as vegans. We are strenuously trying to open up the subject whilst trying not to seem hair-brained revolutionaries. As animal ambassadors, we have to listen to people expressing their opinions (about eating animals) and love them as if they were simply caterwauling children!

If our voices ever do get to be heard, other ‘voices’ will attempt to silence us. But hey, we’ve just moved into the Information Age. Lots of secret things are coming to light. It’s inevitable, the ‘V’ word will eventually gain currency.

Covering-up Animal Rights

856: 

Unfortunately, as important as Animal Rights issues are to us, they’re irrelevant to those who determine the way farm animals are treated - they pay the piper, and they call the tune. They ‘own’ their animals and what they produce. They advertise animal products as if they had nothing to do with living animals. So, what we have to say about the way they treat their animals is unimportant to them, simply because it’s unimportant to their customers. But, to be on the safe side, they don’t denigrate us or dispute what we say - they simply ignore us altogether. They reckon if issues are not discussed in public they’ll seem not to exist, and that will mean fewer people rocking the boat.

The Industry spends a lot of money on advertising and therefore has the power to discourage the mass media from looking too closely at the idea that animals deserve rights. The power of the advertisers determines that this subject becomes a non-subject. It should never be considered news-worthy. They’d reckon that farm-animal-abuse isn’t a ‘turn on’ for the customer. It’s taboo for a newspaper’s food columnist; they would probably lose their food-industry sponsorship if they dared to suggest that ‘vegan is worth considering’. And anyway, omnivore journalists are hardly likely to sympathise with our case, by arguing against their own personal lifestyles.

As yet, we don’t have any vegan journalists (at least, not ones who have ‘come out’, and are powerful or brave enough) to communicate the essence of this subject to readers; I guess they simply don’t exist, yet. A jobbing journalist certainly wouldn’t risk their reputation writing about it, or risk exposing any double standards. Whilst they might pride themselves on their work on social justice or in general exposing wrongs, this subject is different. It’s a journalist’s dilemma: dare to deal with it once and for all or ignore it altogether and be seen as a toady.

A journalist’s job might be to get to the truth of a story, ‘by sincere exertion’. But to deal with intensive farming or the mass slaughtering of animals would put them off-side with their readership. Worse still, they’d be treating the issues in a serious way and therefore lending a voice of authority to kids, who could use what read to confront their elders over animal-enslavement. There’d probably be complaints, leading to sackings, at Fairfax and Murdoch Press.

To stay safe, writers and readers, parents and teachers, priests and elders MUST conspire to silence, “Don’t mention it in front of the kids”. If students at school got to know (about abattoirs and farms) and felt an empathy with the animals, they’d go vegan in a flash, kids being idealist. Then the trouble starts - they try to persuade their parents to accommodate them over this.

Pre-empting that, parents would have a highly inconvenient junior revolution on their hands. They’d be desperately seeking support. They’d be speaking to other parents, “... And whatever you do, don’t introduce your kids to any vegans”.

Our need to be unforgettable

855: 

If we do get depressed by the omnivores’ lack of response to what we’re saying, there’s no need to get judgemental about it. What a waste of time it is to sit in front of TV, abusing the actor promoting the meat, or the TV chef showing us how to roast a leg of lamb. They’re just earning their dollars. Sure, they may be prostituting their culinary and thespian skills and not questioning their pay cheque but it’s not so very different to the un-questioning customer at the checkout; one isn’t much worse than the other.

Here, in front of the TV, we vegans can vent our spleen, finding it easier to abuse the face on TV than attack the guys paying these actors to sell their goods for them. But our need to go on the attack brings us back to that unfortunate image we’ve acquired, which is aggressive and quick to judge.

When vegans get ‘hot under the collar’, we don’t impress or inspire anyone ... and so we’re easily dismissible ... and therefore what we say is easily forgettable. And that means we’ve squandered any opportunity to connect with people over the central issues of animal abuse.

I hate to sound overwhelming

854: 

Some will argue that people should see what happens to animals for themselves. If they can’t visit a factory farm or can’t gain admission to an animal research laboratory, then even by watching video footage or seeing still-pictorial evidence, there should be enough there to galvanise intention to act. They need to see the ‘horrors’ for themself to know them. But if seeing is believing it isn’t necessarily the gateway to intention-to-act; deaf ears and blind eyes are just as persuasive. Which is why most people see but do nothing.

Under my arm I have a swag of pictorial evidence, but if you don’t want to see it, I won’t have permission to show you. So, when someone like a vegan fronts up with facts and pictures we are about to damage your sensibilities, even damage our friendship.

You can imagine the reaction. A fortress mentality develops to protect ones right to know and therefore one’s right to choose what food one eats.

As a vegan I might not realise the damage I can do whenever I heavy people over their food. The omnivore is not questioning food, not even entering this sphere, because they’re already doing their best on other fronts, keeping pace with other good causes they want to support. The only trouble with this is that whatever good they may be doing for another cause, if they’re still ‘fouling their nest’ by using animals for food, it rather cancels out what they’re doing elsewhere.

If they’re still supporting the abuse of animals, condoning cruelty, etc. It’s likely they’ve been lulled into a false sense of security about the food they eat and the acceptability of farming animals. And that ‘security’ is shared by almost every other person on the planet, and throughout history. If this is so, then why should anyone listen to what vegans are saying?

The odds against our views are overwhelming. And it seems the only way to get our point across is to shout ever louder, since nothing else seems to work. But we underestimate how long social change of this order will take, we underestimate how huge a truth conventional foods represent. This is a very early stage in Animal Rights consciousness (the concept was largely unheard of thirty years ago). The way it works now is that vegan animal rightists seem to be making such small progress that we become impatient. We get pushy over all this. And for that we are disliked.

We are a mere minor irritation to be brushed away like a fly. And that means we may not be able to reach people directly, head on. Apart from being regarded by most people as weird, even if we could get people to take us seriously it wouldn’t get us very far, since we’ve been effectively silenced by the media. And these days if you don’t frequently read about an issue or hear about it, it fades in importance.

Vegans have never had the freedom to disseminate ideas. Since we’ve never had a stage to speak from it is all the more galling to see how the Animal Industries have monopolised the media. They are the friend and the client of the Animal Industry, who in turn use the media to continually pound home their point, that their products are, satisfying, acceptable and not unhealthy. The potential customer is daily reminded, in books, papers, TV and radio, that animal products are both very available and nutritious. They don’t have to go into too much detail, because their message is what people want to hear anyway. People become convinced that they can’t do without it … and so business continues uninterrupted.

You’d think that the level of lies and nonsense couldn’t possibly last for much longer, but for the present, things don’t look too good for either the human or the animal. The Animal Industry’s message is constantly being freshened up with expensive promotions. Our message, on the other hand, gets no coverage at all, and is therefore easily forgotten. They have all the advantages, we have almost none. To help them secure their advantage, they pay actors big money to promote their products (often glamorous and articulate celebrities). And this is successful, up to a point, since they are selling to people who want to believe in what they’re being sold. It’s all very comforting to consumers.

Do I find that depressing or what?, especially since I know that most of my most kind-hearted and intelligent and educated friends have been so easily manipulated.

Big shiftings

853: 

One of the greatest temptations for grown-ups, who are free to make their own lifestyle choices, is to harden up. By becoming pragmatic and avoiding introspection, they are free to break a few ethical rules. Once they have children they imitate their parents’ values. If adults go astray they lead their kids astray with them. With ten or twenty years of indoctrination, young people might find it difficult to then adopt a truly compassionate personality ... and yet many do.

An instinct in some young people questions their elders’ values; their fellow humans could be wrong about something as fundamental as accepting violence done to animals for the sake of eating tasty food. The problem, as I see it, is that humans develop and entrench certain habits and then forget ever to question them.

Young people, however, have a chance to make changes when they first move away from their parents’ dining table. But theory is not practice, and this is a time when they probably need most practical help, to give them enough confidence to change and establish new eating habits relevant to a plant-based diet.

If they can’t find some useful guidance it’s likely the ‘pressures of normality’ will weigh down on them too heavily and they’ll revert. They’ll give up before they’ve even started.

The rewards for complying with majority ‘taste’ are obvious, in that almost every shop on the High Street offers irresistible attractions. With food alone there are too many food normalities and addictive food habits to forego. Even if one is ready to take up a vegan lifestyle, it might not be taken seriously because shops have such a limited range of vegan foods, and if they do they’re expensive.

If you do take up vegan-living there’ll be an immediate change to your whole life style. Some can handle that. They’ll rise to the challenge. But the reality is that, if your decision to make a radical change of diet is left too long, the social pressure to ‘settle down’ might leave no room for change. By one’s late twenties it might be too late. Unless we make the move fairly early, soon after leaving parental control, it’s unlikely our ‘habit-self’ will allow us to become vegetarian let alone vegan.

How great is the gulf, then, between practising vegans and ‘non-vegans’? Probably enough to need a collective fundamental attitude change to make changing feel less reckless , and for that, in order to hit the ground running, one would need to be free of mind. We’d need to be about two years old, not chronologically but in a person’s freshness of approach, so that the taking-up-of-new-ideas is relatively painless.

The principle behind the herbivore

852: 

Animal Liberation has come on a long way since the 1970’s but nowhere near far enough to be even close to the liberating of animals. It’s great that the vegan movement has emerged but sad to see how slow it has been to catch on. Early ideals have faded away and hearts have re-hardened. Eating habits are so deeply entrenched that when the novelty (of the philosophy behind true vegetarianism) wore off, old eating habits were returned to.

            A friend of mine tells me that humans are naturally omnivorous, and that’s the platform on which she rests all her beliefs about animal food and clothing. She’s exemplary about her environmental habits and her political leanings, but here, over animal issues, there’s a sticking point - she says it’s wrong to eat meat but ethical to eat animal products since the animal isn’t killed for its by-products (milk or eggs or wool). Oh no?

In that one misunderstanding (or obstinacy) one is able to justify the use of these products, which in turn allows one to justify the using of hundreds of food items using these by-products.

            This is where vegans are thorough in their avoidance of all items connected with animals, because each animal that is used ends up at the abattoir and always leads a life of misery and/or confinement beforehand.

            The idea of a totally plant-based regimen is resisted more hotly by the lacto-ovo vegetarian than the meatless diets are resisted by carnivores. The by-product-eating vegetarian, passionately resisting becoming a vegan, is content with simply going half way, by moving away from the killing of animals for their meat.

            I use the identifier, ‘omnivore’, not to describe the whole person but as the one very important defining attitude of that person. The habits of one’s own life, especially after a few years into adulthood, are strongly laid down; as we get used to using animals for our convenience it becomes ever harder to stop, which is why a rather clumsy justification is adopted for the using of animal products.

As young people enter the adult world they want acceptance. They want to be taken seriously, so the young adult emulates his or her elders. In certain important social ways, as with eating habits, they don’t want to stand out as being different. And yet there might be a stronger force at play here. It might manifest as a rebellion against the ways of their elders, or even their peers, replacing the habits of the majority with those of a minority who have more empathy-driven compassion.