Only Wars and Viruses

few days ago, probably the most famous animal abuse festival in the world – the fiesta in honor of San Fermin mostly known as Running of the Bulls – was supposed to end. But for the first time since the Spanish Civil War it was canceled.

For anyone not familiar with the abusive festival, a run takes place every day at 8A.M. between the 7th and the 14th of July. 6 bulls and 6 steers who are supposed to herd them, run the 825 meters of immensely crowded narrow streets from the corral and into the bullring.
The terrified bulls, surrounded by hundreds of runners, are harassed and touched all along the run.
Running on the cobbled streets with sharp turns, the bulls also suffer from falls, trampling, bruises and fractures. They often collide with the walls, get severely injured, sometimes breaking bones.

 

When entering the bullring the bulls are immediately imprisoned inside the ring, saving them for later. Meanwhile cows and calves are released to the bullring for the runners to enjoy as they abuse them, playing matadors. In the evening the 6 bulls, who were forced to run in the morning, are tortured in a bullfight spectacle.

Of course, despite the cancelation, humans still dressed up in white clothes and traditional red scarves to mark the abuse. And the state broadcaster TVE played reruns from previous years every morning.

The Running of the Bulls festival is consistently preceded with creative protests by animal rights activists, and until about a decade ago, humans were even offered to forsake the running of the bulls festival and instead join the alternative Running of the Nudes festival.

Campaigns against this festival, as well as against bullfighting in general, are being held for decades now. Dozens of animal rights organizations campaigning for decades, thousands of demonstrations in front of Spanish embassies, tens of thousands of letters to Spanish governments, decades of a boycott on Spain by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. But nothing helps.
Even the Catalan ban on bullfighting is small, regional, and was originally made for political reasons and not moral ones. And even that was repealed about four years ago by Spain’s Constitutional Court who overturned the ban for being unconstitutional. The formal excuse is that bullfights are part of ‘Spanish cultural heritage’ and thus outlawing them can only be legislated by the central government.

In this world, things don’t change for moral reasons. The two things that did manage to call off the festival and bullfights are a civil war and a pandemic. And still, they didn’t end these horrors permanently but just canceled them for one year. Bullfighting is set to return in October, and Pamplona’s mayor said that 2021’s San Fermin festival should be the best in history. So to end it for good, along with the rest of the animal tortures, what is actually needed is something similar but with a much more profound effect.

Elephants Don’t Forget, But Humans Do

The human race received many wishes for its extinction in the passing week. The reason was the appalling case of an elephant who was killed in India by eating a trap pineapple stuffed with powerful firecrackers. The murder initiated a widespread outrage on social media. Some of which was fueled by political motives (rightwing Hindu nationalists blaming Muslims for the killing), but much of it, especially outside of India, is from people wishing for humanity to vanish from the face of the earth.

Here are just a few examples of what people wrote:
“This is an another example of why we don’t deserve this planet”
“Humans should gtfo”
“The human race as malicious… pollute, kill, torture, destruction of their own kind as well
“Poor innocent creature, humans are the worst creatures on this planet”
“I am filling shameful being a human now”
“Humans really are the worst living creatures and i have said it before too”
“After knowing about this tragedy I am ashamed to be human!!! Wtf is wrong with humanity”
“Human Don’t deserve to live”
“News like this makes me think we deserve this pandemic”
“Maybe we are the most developed species on the earth with all the technologies we have but sorry we r moving towards the end of humanity…shame on us”
“Q: Want to see the dangerous animal on the world??? A: Then look into the mirror”
“Humans are killing the world. Heartless people don’t deserve this planet”
“Humans don’t deserve to live in this earth including me”
“We need another virus having 90% of fatality rate, no human is innocent. Let nature punish us”

Many animal liberation activists find it very ironic and outrageous that the same people who are wishing humanity to go extinct are not willing to make their own animal consumption go extinct. They are rightfully irritated and frustrated by the fact that so many people can deeply empathize with the suffering of one elephant but at the same time be so indifferent to the no less suffering that they are personally causing.

This occurrence is truly extremely horrifying as the elephant’s mouth was hurt so bad that she couldn’t eat and so died of hunger after about 4 days of agony. But battery cages are also extremely horrifying, and so are gestation crates , and the bear bile industry , and the premarin industry , and muelsing , and TD, and iron burning , and veal crates, and animal experiments and etc.

And so while people are right that humanity must go extinct, this feeling will soon pass. When the rage would decrease, they would forget ever writing that the human race should go extinct and go back to their meaningless lives.
But you are different. Your rage would never ease. You are activists, rage against humanity is your default, not a temporary phase. You will not go back to your meaningless lives when this story is forgotten and forget ever wishing for humanity to go extinct. You will go back to your meaningful lives and you won’t need to remember ever wishing for humanity to go extinct because that is what you wish for every day.
But you will forget that wishing is not enough. Humanity won’t go extinct if enough people would wish for it to happen, but only if enough people would decide to channel their rage, hope and wishes into actions .

Not Even Now, Not Even Only the “Wet” Markets

Many wildlife and conservation groups view the Covid-19 pandemic as a great opportune moment to close down live animal markets (‘wet markets’), if not all wildlife trade.
These claims have received some tailwind from some politicians, lawmakers, and health officials who called the World Health Organization to order a shutdown of live animal markets. Of course much of that is due to political interests related to the U.S.-China trade war, as many American politicians focused solely on Chinese live animal markets instead of all of them, or all the wildlife trade. But anyway The WHO pushed back on the calls to ban these markets, saying that they need to be “well regulated and managed”, not closed down.

Many animal liberation groups also view this pandemic as a great opportune moment, but obviously they are making a much broader and more accurate connection between pandemics and animal consumption, calling to close down all the factory farms as they are the ideal environment for zoonotic pathogens (animal-borne pathogens that can infect humans) to develop and spread.

Another motive of animal liberation groups might be the fear that if only live animals markets would be closed down, since humans’ desire for animal flesh won’t go down with it, that means that at least some of the humans who consume animals’ flesh in these markets would get more of it from factory farms. So this call might actually end up increasing animal suffering.

But there is no need to rack your brains over this as none of it is going to happen. Even the current pandemic won’t make humanity decide to close down the live animal markets, not to mention stop consuming animal based food. No matter what the results of this pandemic are, even the live animal markets won’t be closed down permanently, and certainly not factory farms. Continue reading

Animals’ Time? Part 3 – Comparably Wrong

Many activists are saying that after the working class liberation, black liberation, women liberation and gay liberation this is animals’ time. Discrimination on the basis of species is the last form of discrimination to be fought against.

Thinking that this is animals’ time since other forms of discrimination were already successfully addressed is a mistake from at least three different aspects. The first is a factual one – all of the so called revolutions are still far from occurring. The second is conceptual – the belief that eventually the truth has got to win, requires falsely observing history as a purposeful force moving in a linear way from bad to good, from chaotic to ordered, from irrational to rational. And the third one is analogical – even if human social struggles were successful, we can’t infer from them about nonhumans’ struggle, because they are fundamentally different.
In the following post we’ll address the third aspect.

Comparatively Wrong

Many activists compare animals’ institutionalized exploitation with slavery. They use it as a rhetorical tool, trying to convince the public that just as discrimination based on skin color is arbitrary and wrong so is discrimination based on species, and they use it as an inspiration source arguing that just as enslavement based on skin color discrimination was ended, exploitation based on species discrimination can also end.

We find this inspiration utterly false for several reasons, which we broadly detailed in a series of posts about slavery. Here are the arguments in short. Continue reading

Animals’ Time? – Part 2 – Conceptually Wrong

Many activists are saying that after the working class liberation, black liberation, women liberation and gay liberation this is the animals’ time. Discrimination on the basis of species is the last form of discrimination to be fought against.

Thinking that this is animals’ time since other forms of discrimination were already successfully addressed is false from at least three different aspects. The first is a factual one – all of the so called revolutions are still far from occurring. The second is conceptual – the belief that eventually the truth has got to win, requires falsely observing history as a purposeful force moving in a linear way from bad to good, from chaotic to ordered, from irrational to rational. And the third one is analogical – even if human social struggles were successful, we can’t infer from them about nonhumans’ struggle, because they are fundamentally different.
In the following post we’ll address the second aspect.

Conceptually Wrong

The belief that “this is animals’ time”, probably unconsciously, relies on an inherently religious telos, whose secular form is manifested in the enlightenment narrative and the notion of progress, in which ‘the good’ or ‘the truth’ inevitably triumphs in the end, and rationality will inevitably triumph over irrationality if given enough time. All along history activists believed that if they would persist they would win in the end, the truth would inevitability be realized and therefore embraced by everyone.
The problem with this telos is that it is theoretically unprovable and practically entirely baseless. There is no guaranty that “the good” will overcome. There is nothing to support this notion other than the desperate need to believe in it.

There is no reason to believe the “good” will win. It makes much more sense that what has happened so far will keep happening in the future, and that is that the interests of the powerful of each era win. The truth about what goes on inside factory farms was revealed long ago, and yet… Continue reading

Animals’ Time? – Part 1 – Factually Wrong

In the former post we have argued that despite some specific relative successes, some optimistic prospects, and mostly despite the “we’re winning!” rhetoric common among many activists, we are still very very far from wining. Despite the vegan hype and the occasional launch of new plant based products, global consumption of meat is still on the rise. So not only that we are not “winning”, it is still the case that each year more animals are being exploited in severer ways.

In the following posts we’ll argue that not only that we are not winning, there is no reason to believe that we would win simply because we are right. The world doesn’t work like that. We very much want to believe that it does, partly because of an honest, naive and real belief in our goals, but also because people rather believe in a just world theory (that eventually what is true, right, ethical, fair, and just would win) than that there is no causal relation between what things should be like (because that is what is true, right, and just), and how things are actually like.

Many activists are saying that after the working-class liberation, black liberation, women liberation and gay liberation this is the animals’ time. Discrimination on the basis of species is the last form of discrimination to be fought against.

Thinking that this is animals’ time since other forms of discrimination were already successfully addressed is false from at least three different aspects. The first is a factual one – all of the so called revolutions are still far from occurring. The second is conceptual – the belief that eventually the truth has got to win, requires falsely observing history as a purposeful force moving in a linear way from bad to good, from chaotic to ordered, from irrational to rational. And the third one is analogical – even if human social struggles were successful, we can’t infer from them about nonhumans’ struggle, because they are fundamentally different.
The following post address the first aspect. Continue reading

Decreasing the Increase

2019 is presented as a very good year for veganism. In some aspects it really was, but far from being as good as is often represented by whom who keep pumping the “we’re winning!” rhetoric among the vegan community, and definitely far from being as good as it was supposed to be considering the widening acknowledgment of the connection between animal based food and health issues, climate change, the enormous food and water waste, the enormous pollution, obesity, and of course since nowadays non-vegans are losing even their final excuses for not going vegan – that they won’t have anything to eat, as there is an amazing variety of vegan products with the same look, texture and taste, as non-vegan products. But all of that didn’t make veganism mainstream despite that it long ago should have.

As argued in the post for World Vegan Day, some people in the vegan community think it did become mainstream, but they are confusing knowing what veganism is with it being mainstream. Nowadays everybody knows what veganism is and many even know a vegan personally, but mainstream doesn’t mean that in every large city there would be at least one vegan restaurant, but that in every large city there would be a few non-vegan restaurants since the rest are. Mainstream veganism means that animal products are marginal, not still the absolute majority in every supermarket everywhere in the world.

It is very positive that there are plant based products in supermarkets, and it is encouraging in the sense that they have not been there a few years ago and now there are plenty. However, despite that all these vegan options are available in many places, they are still surrounded by non-vegan ones. So activists can be encouraged and draw optimism from the fact that there are plant based burgers along with flesh burgers in the meat aisles, but in the same breath they must ask why the hell are there still flesh burgers when there are equivalently tasty plant based burgers right next to them? How careless to other sentient beings’ suffering must someone be to still choose the flesh burgers? There is nothing victorious about the fact that humans choose again and again the cruel options over the amazing variety of the vegan ones.

Continue reading

Gods of Power

Yesterday, Hindu worshippers have slaughtered thousands of buffalos as part of a religious ritual held every five years in southern Nepal, called Gadhimai.
That is despite that many activists were hopeful that this gruesome centuries-old ritual would end after the temple authorities had allegedly announced that the prior ritual, held in 2014, would be the last one, and after the Supreme Court of Nepal has reached a verdict in favor of ending the live animal sacrifice at the festival. But people want bloodshed. Continue reading

Impossible Species

The World Vegan Day held today, is expected to be cheerful than ever. That is because optimism among the vegan community is probably stronger than ever before, and for three main reasons.
The first one is that after decades of contempt, arrogance and disinterest, during the last several years, the fogyish medical establishment is showing a relative openness and readiness towards veganism. Secondly, similarly to the health establishment, after decades of almost total disregard for veganism, the environmental movement finally tags along, mainly as a result of the unignorable connection between factory farms and climate change. And thirdly, in the last couple of years, the variety and availability of vegan products, especially ones who try to directly substitute animal derived products, is outstanding.

However, there are worrying aspects to each of these factors.
A couple of months ago we have addressed the less encouraging and actually worrying aspects of the change among the health establishment, which might end up increasing the number of individuals whose lives are suffering from birth to death, and in the previous Earth Day we have dealt with the less encouraging and very worrying aspects of the change among the environmental movement, which also might end up increasing the number of individuals whose lives are suffering from birth to death, as well as increasing the suffering of each victim.
Here we focus on a worrying aspect of the abundance of plant based products that look, cook, and taste like animals’ flesh. Continue reading

Violent Body Invasion

Today is World Farm Animals Day. “Farm animals” are actually animals who once were like any other animal until humans have picked them to be its main resource for food. Humans have turned these sentient animals to the poorest beings on earth, not only by confining them in the worst conditions in history, but also by confining them in their own bodies. Humans have so severely modified sentient beings (sentient beings they now refer to as farm animals), to the point that they suffer merely from living in their own bodies.

Every year, humans are doubly imprisoning more than a hundred billion sentient beings. In the torture facilities they have designed to keep them in called factory farms, and in torture facility they have designed to keep them called their own body.

The following are some examples of the second prison of “farm animals”. Continue reading

Accelerating Hell

Red Alert

Last week it was revealed by the Human Rights Watch that The US government is expanding the number of chickens exploitation companies that can accelerate the speed of their slaughter lines. It also plans to eliminate caps on slaughter line speeds for pigs and cows exploiters in the near future.
Currently, federal regulations allow murdering over a thousand pigs an hour. But a pilot program, which the Trump administration proposes, would allow slaughterhouses to murder as many as they want.

The number of murdered animals per day has already increased over the years, as well as the mass murder goal rate. Now it is going to get even worse. Faster slaughter lines mean even more stress and violence inflicted upon nonhuman animals during the murder process. It’s making one of the worst things in the world even worse. Continue reading

The Threat of Nonviolence

The Threat of Nonviolence

There is an ongoing fuss in the past week over some press coverage of British farmers claiming they were threatened by vegan activists.
Obviously it’s a blown story made up by some farmers and used by some gutter press. There is no evidence of any of these accusations. No screenshots, no recordings, no letters or anything of that sort. If anything, activists were suggesting farmers to try and put themselves in the position of the animals, writing things  like “would you want to be treated that way” – hoping to make them feel more related, not frightened. Expectedly, these scumbags have turned what is meant to be some sort of a thought experiment to try and make them empathize with their victims – into made up death threats.

But even if it was true, the problem isn’t that activists sent violent threats to farmers and butchers, the problem is with the method and with the addressees. Farmers and butchers are not the reason why billions of animals are suffering from birth to murder – humanity is. Farmers and butchers are only the operating hands of a huge oppressing machine. The head is humanity. No point in threating the hands. It would be the wrong method aimed at the wrong target. It is the head which should be targeted and the means shouldn’t be death threats.

Many of the activists’ responses are defensive, arguing that they can’t be violent since they are advocators of non-violent approach. Activists should be defensive but not because of manipulative farmers and sensationalist media, but since the non-violent approach is actually violent. Continue reading

The End of the World

The_End_of_the_World

In the last post we shortly discussed a new research regarding the sixth extinction episode . In this one we shortly discuss a newly published book by Peter Brannen about the 5 previous mass extinction episodes called “The Ends of the World”.

The book tells the story of the five biggest mass extinctions, and what can be learned from them about the current one. Obviously the target audience is not activists and supporters of the E.A.S movement , but it is very relevant for us. Continue reading

The Violence Even Activists Are Disregarding

The_Violence_Even_Activists_Are_Disregarding

We complete this series of posts regarding violence with what is probably activists’ biggest blind spot, violence in nature.

For many animal rights activists nature represents perfection, a romantic and virtuous ideal we should aspire to, something that ought to be reverently preserved and never criticized. But the truth is that nature is where trillions of sentient beings suffer from hunger, thirst, diseases, parasites, injuries, extreme weathers, rape, infanticide, violent dominancy fights, the constant fear of being attacked, actually being attacked, and only rarely from caducity.

Probably the first natural cause of violence that comes to mind is predation.
Predation is literally as old as life itself. It goes back to the most ancient life forms – single cell organisms. As soon as there were living single cell organisms, one of their major functions was to acquire chemicals from their surroundings. As time went by, some organisms, by chance (mutation), started obtaining the organic molecules they require by devouring the cells around them, instead of gathering them from the surroundings. This turned out to be an efficient “strategy”. About 3.5 billion years later there are fangs, claws, talons, venoms, webs, beaks, sonars, infra-red vision, tentacles and etc.

But besides predation, there are many other suffering causes in nature. Continue reading

Reclaiming the Power We Should Have Never Given to Humans

Reclaiming the Power We Should Have Never Given to HumansAmong the replies we have got about our post regarding the non-violent approach we thought there are 2 types we should address.

The first is that since activists who would engage in violence activities towards non-vegans would get caught very fast, it is counterproductive. That is despite the fact that we have clarified in the preface of the post that we don’t suggest sporadically killing non-vegans.
What we do argue is that killing every meat eater who wasn’t convinced by advocacy is morally justifiable, but since it is absolutely impracticable we don’t suggest or support that. It won’t help even one animal and would even end up hurting more animals by labeling animal activists as even more extreme and violent by the general public. It is a bad option which was never suggested nor implied.

Another type of reply is that since activists obviously can’t kill every non-vegan who was not convinced by their arguments (since they would probably get caught after the first one), they are not violent and speciesist for choosing advocacy.

It is crucial to emphasis that the point of this argument isn’t that activists are actually violence supporters and speciesist because they don’t kill meat eaters, but that they are because they don’t think they ought to.
We are not arguing that if you practically don’t kill every human who wasn’t convinced to stop consuming animals you are a speciesist. We are arguing that if you don’t think that theoretically you must stop (by whatever means it necessary) every human who wasn’t convinced to stop consuming animals you are a speciesist since that human is going to keep abusing. Continue reading

13 Comments on the 13th Amendment

13 Comments on the 13th Amendment

Today, 150 years ago, William Seward the United States‘ Secretary of State, proclaimed the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment which formally abolished slavery and involuntary servitude (excluding as a form of punishment). A good opportunity to discuss slavery abolishment as it is one of the greatest inspirations of the animal rights movement.
We find this inspiration utterly false for several reasons and in the following posts we’ll focus on the main ones.

In the first one we argue that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the civil war were a product of a moral struggle.
In the second we argue that both didn’t end slavery in the United States.
In the third, fourth and fifth that slavery wasn’t ended at all and is still extremely prevalent.
And in the last part that even if slavery did end, animal activists can’t draw conclusions from human slavery since the two oppressive systems are fundamentally different.

The following post is largely an historical review of the political, economic and moral climate before and during the American civil war, in an attempt to present the real reasons behind it. We find this analysis crucial for this discussion specifically, since many cling on to these kinds of myths, building around them their activistic philosophy, and since generally, it sheds a light on human society and how things work in this world, and why.

The Civil War broke for many reasons, none of which had to do with any sort of moral cause as the abolition of slavery.

Wars don’t break for moral reasons. And they definitely don’t break between two sides over the rights of a third one. Wars generally break for money or power, and usually both. And so did the American civil war.

As opposite to the myth that the war was over slavery, the war’s real reason and actually the official casus belli was the decision of 11 southern states to secede from the Union due to the results of the election of 1860, and the North’s decision to militarily force them to stay. That is the power cause, however to understand the political climate preceding the secession, we must start with the money. Continue reading

Effective Disillusionment

Effective Banality

In the last couple of years Peter Singer has set himself as spokesperson of a new movement called Effective Altruism.
His latest book, which to its last chapter we addressed in a post called “From Groundbreaking Animal Liberation to Neverending Animal Exploitation”, is called The Most Good You Can Do. It presents the movement’s basic idea,as he simply says in its preface -we should do the most good we can.

Unfortunately and disappointingly, by “we”Singer is referring to the already allegedly do gooders of the world. The book and movement, clearly aim at a small section of the population. He basically offers a practical instruction guide for donors and potential donors, calling them to think before they donate because there are tremendous differences in the effectiveness potential of different charities.

Singer points out that in the United States alone there are almost one million charities, receiving a total of approximately $200 billion a year with an additional $100 billion donated to religious congregations and all this money could be distributed much more effectively.
He is obviously right, but we certainly don’t want to hear it from him. It is very depressing that human society needs a bold thinker like Peter Singer for such embarrassingly elementary inferences.
Continue reading

From Groundbreaking Animal Liberation to Neverending Animal Exploitation

A call to save human tyranny from possible extinction in 2015

A call to liberate animals from human tyranny in 1975

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xxxxxxxxxx
It so happens that our third post is also the third post about the possibility of an asteroid collision, but not since the first international asteroid day was held yesterday, but since 2 months ago Peter Singer published a new book in which he also addresses the annihilation possibility, and speaks out about actively mobilizing caring people to regard this issue. Only that he calls for the exact opposite.

Undoubtedly, his status is in drastic decline within the movement (which is literally named after his own pioneering historic book) due to some very miserable statements he made over the years. However it was still surprising and disappointing that in his last book he not only made another significant step of disconnection, at least from the more radical activists, it seems that he lost contact with his own perceptions and with reality.

The book is kind of a manifest of the ideological movement he is part of in recent years called effective altruism, which basically asks people who wish to donate time or money to charities, to stop and think where their limited resources would do the most good possible, and accordingly it is titled The Most Good You Can Do.
In the following post we’ll refer to the rest of the book but currently we want to relate to its last extremely depressing part.

The chapter name is Preventing Human Extinction, and in it Singer lists some of what he refers to as extinction threats. He focuses on the option of an asteroid collision, mainly since as opposed to the rest of the risks he specified, humans can roughly estimate this risk possibility and can potentially prevent it. These two are crucial elements in effective altruism calculations, as the basic idea is how to reasonably choose the purpose which would produce the most good.
All along the chapter he deals with the question: Should we also be putting resources into developing the ability to deflect any objects that appear to be heading for us?
Continue reading