The Liberator: Remix – Issue 8 – Abolition At The Ballot Box

From The Liberator: Remix

February 19, 2010

Abolition At The Ballot Box

Once more, I beg not to be misapprehended. I have always expected, I still expect, to see abolition at the ballot-box, renovating the political action of the country—dispelling the sorcery influences of party—breaking asunder the fetters of political servitude—stirring up the torpid consciences of voters—substituting anti-animal-slavery for pro-animal-slavery representatives in every legislative assembly—modifying and rescinding all laws solely by a change in the moral vision of the people—not by attempting to prove that it is the duty of every abolitionist to be a voter, but that it is the duty of every voter to be an abolitionist. By converting electors to the doctrine that animal slavery ought to be immediately abolished, a rectified political action is the natural consequence; for where this doctrine is received into the soul, the soul-carrier may be trusted any where, that he will not betray the cause of bleeding humanity. As to the height and depth, the length and breadth of MORALITY, it is not the province of abolition to decide; but only to ettle one point—to wit, that slaveholding is a crime under all circumstances, leaving those who believe in the doctrine to carry out their principles, with all fidelity, in whatever sphere they may be called upon to act, but not authoritatively determining whether they are bound to be members of the church, or voters at the polls. It has never been a difficult matter to induce men to go to the ballot-box; but the grand difficulty ever has been, and still is, to persuade them to carry a good conscience thither, and act as free moral agents, not as tools of party.

Original By William Lloyd Garrison

Remixed By Peace Is Coming For You

The Liberator: Remix – Issue 5 – To-Day

From The Liberator: Remix

January 28, 2010


Another New Year is born, and, after the similitude of farm animals’ inevitable fate, in a little space must die. Brief as it will prove, how serious and important will be its history—to individuals, as well as to nations! How many thrones may it not shake, or fetters sever, or revolutions witness! The crisis of the world has not yet come: scarcely the preface of its eventful history is writ. Empires are to be re-fashioned, and a large portion of the earth reclaimed from superstition and barbarism, from oppression and idolatry. We talk of the march of the mind; we marvel at the age of creation;—but does knowledge keep pace with ignorance, or virtue with vice, or benevolence with suffering, or liberty with tyranny, among mankind? Most evidently not. How long will it take to regenerate and disenthral benighted animals? how long to veganize Asia? how long to reform carni-centric America? how long to redeem the world? Surely time is in its infancy. Strange that men predict a millennium at so early a day.

The past has been an eventful year; the present will probably be yet more troublous. The exploitation industry has just begun to feel the upheavings of the earthquake which is to overthrow its strong towers, and the heat of a fire which is to melt every cage. There are signs in the political firmament of industry which portend sudden and disastrous convulsions; but known only to fate are the hidden things of time.

In this country, of those who hailed the opening of the past year, there have died at least 100 billion animals. More than a million vegans have “gone about the streets pamphleting.” How cruel is man! Who and how many must die the present year? Perhaps half a trillion. Of this number, how many shall we or our friends make? O Life! O Death! O Eternity!

In this free and “civilized” society, too, be it remembered, there were kidnapped during the past year, and violently slaughtered, more than 700,000 veal calves, the offspring of slave parents!!! A greater number, this year, is to meet a similar doom! Have we no reason to fear the judgments of conscientious folks upon our guilty land?

Original by William Lloyd Garrison

Remixed by Peace Is Coming For You

Video – “Sizzla” (iMovie)

The Liberator: Remix – Issue 4 – The Salutation

From The Liberator: Remix

January 22, 2010

The Salutation

To date my being from the opening year,
I come, a stranger to this busy sphere,
Where some I meet perchance may pause and ask,
What is my name, my purpose, or my task?

My name is “LIBERATOR”! I propose
To hurl my shafts at freedom’s deadliest foes!
My task is hard—for I am charged to save
Animal from Man!—to redeem the slave!

Ye who may hear, and yet condemn my cause,
Say, shall the best of Nature’s holy laws
Be trodden down? and shall her open veins
Flow but for cement to her offspring’s chains?

Art thou a parent? shall thy children be
Rent from thy breast, like branches from the tree,
And doom’d to servitude, in helplessness
On “happy” farms, and thou ask no redress?

Thou, in whose bosom glows the sacred flame
Of filial love, say, if the tyrant came,
To force thy parent shrieking from thy sight,
Would thy heart bleed—because thy species is right?

Art thou a brother? shall thy sister twine
Her feeble arm in agony on thine,
And thou not lift the heel, nor aim the blow,
At him who bears her off to life-long wo?

Art thou a sister? will no desp’rate cry
Awake thy sleeping brother, while thine eye
Beholds the fences locking him in
Stretched out in rest, which hence, must end, for him?

Art thou a lover?—no! nought e’er was found
In lover’s breast, save cords of love, that bound
Man to animal kind! then, thy profession save!
Forswear affection or release thy slave!

Thou who art kneeling at thy butchers’s shrine,
Ask if peace takes such offerings as thine!
If in thy bonds the farm animal sighs,
Far higher than thy cholesterol his groans will rise!

Man can show mercy, and would see
The prison doors unbarr’d—the bonded free!
Man can seek truth, with purer eyes
Than to behold the oppresor’s sacrifice!

Avarice, thy cry and thine insatiable thirst
Make men consent to see their dinner cursed!
Tears, sweat and blood pus thou drinks’t, but, in their turn,
They shall cry “no more!” while E. coli bids men burn.

We hath said it!—who shall gainsay?
We say, “the wicked they shall go away,”——
Who are the wicked?——Wicked as cannibals,
They are the oppressors of their fellow animals!

Aid me, good people! ’tis my hope in you
Which gives me strength my purpose to pursue!
Do you not hear your sisters and brothers resound
With Nature’s sights to have her sons unbound?

Original by Anonymous/William Lloyd Garrison

Remixed by Peace Is Coming For You

Why A Resource-Based Economy Must Be Vegan

Why A Resource-Based Economy Must Be Vegan

“As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.” -Leo Tolstoy

Before money as we know it, there was cattle. Around 9000 B.C., records show livestock, specifically cattle, was the universal currency. The word “capital” derived from cattle. This is also where the word chattel derived from- as in chattel slavery. Using non-human animals as currency combines two of humanity’s great failures, the monetary system and arbitrary discrimination. It is interesting that two of the most problematic ideologies of all human history share the same foundational basis.

From The Venus Project Website FAQ:

Q. “What about food? Would people eat meat?”

A. “Food and nutrition would be based upon personal preference and if studies indicate that eating living animals are detrimental to health the information would be there for all people. Through time and education and the manufacturing of synthetic proteins we could do away with killing fish and animals. We can not outlaw what [people] eat but we can outgrow the need for eating animal protein. During the transition to a better diet for those who need it we could also develop foods that taste and feel just like the ones they like eating but are hearthier (sic) for people. We are also against experimenting on animals or people.”

This statement is problematic for many reasons. It assumes erroneously that the exploitation of non-human animals for their flesh and secretions is a morally sound, if questionably unhealthy, “personal preference”. Quite the contrary. The exploitation of non-human animals as resources to be used by humans is blatant speciesism – discrimination based on the arbitrary basis of species membership constructed within an anthropocentric view of the natural world – and is morally unacceptable. The use of non-human animals for the proteins in their flesh is no more a morally sound personal choice than slavery, rape, murder, child molestation, or any other act someone can choose to “personally” do. In all aforementioned comparisons, there is a victim, making the preference that much less “personal”.

It also assumes erroneously that studies have not indicated that eating “living” (it is assumed this means “once living”) animals are a detriment to human health and the information is not available for all people. It is the responsibility of the individual to determine, based on reviewing the science available, what is healthy. Those who have not reviewed the literature, but have relied on government and industry propaganda, remain willfully ignorant.  It is agreed that “through time and education…we could do away with killing fish and animals”, but, while it might be true that consumption of flesh and secretions could decrease with the availability of non-animal synthetics, this does nothing to address the underlying cause of such prevalent and pervasive non-human animal exploitation in all aspects of human life – including food, clothing, entertainment, “pets”, and research- all examples of human exploitation of non-human animals as resources.

The statement implies that we can “outgrow the need for animal protein”. With a billion starving people in the world currently, the use of 50% of antibiotics produced on “livestock”, and an increasing amount of fossil fuels consumed to power machines to plant and harvest feed and to make and apply fertilizer and insecticide, I think we have “outgrown” our need to feed 50% of the world’s grain supply to “livestock” as much as we have “outgrown” our profit-motivated incentive to keep food surpluses from reaching the hands of starving people who need it.

We choose to exploit non-human animals, to use them as resources, at great expense to our existing morals, our current resources, non-human and human populations, the environment, the advancement of technology and medicine, and the evolution of the human species. It seems as though a large part of the ideology behind a resource-based economy would be determining what, exactly, qualifies as a resource.  Not to address further aspects of human exploitation of non-human animals, human use of non-human animals as resources, besides using them for food and testing, hardly seems a proper amount of discourse to be focused on such an important and relevant topic.  Maybe the suffering caused by humans using non-human animals for entertainment, or any other trivial purpose not mentioned in The Venus Project literature, is so clearly unnecessary, unjustified, and despicable as to not be worthy of intellectual argument. Further is an examination of how the ideology of speciesism and carnism, and our current exploitation of non-human animals as resources are as outdated and irrelevant as our monetary system.


“Justice should not be so fragile a commodity that it cannot be extended across the species barrier of homo sapiens” – Carol J. Adams

It is widely agreed that causing unnecessary suffering to a non-human animal is wrong. It is widely agreed that killing a non-human animal unnecessarily is wrong. It is also widely agreed by the scientific community that eating non-human animals or their secretions is unnecessary for achieving optimum nutrition, and has been shown to be injurious to human health. It logically follows that if it is unnecessary to eat non-human animals or their secretions, it is wrong to kill or exploit them in order to do so, by our existing moral standards.  Further, it is obvious in modern society, considering the amount of plant-based and synthetic alternatives, that exploiting and killing non-human animals for their skins, fur, or hair is completely unnecessary. It logically follows that it is wrong to kill non-human animals for their skin.

Our confinement of non-human animals for the consumption of their flesh, and the manipulation of the reproductive cycle of female non-human animals for their secretions, along with the countless other trivial ways we benefit from the work of animals amount to nothing less than institutional animal slavery. There is no “sacrifice”  or willingness involved on the part of the subject of exploitation. The use of non-human animals for their flesh or secretions can never be accomplished in a symbiotic or reciprocative way. For the same reasons (and more) that institutional human slavery, that is, the exploitation of humans as resources, is ethically unacceptable, the exploitation of non-human animals is ethically unacceptable. Using non-human animals as resources, as property, is only different from human slavery because of an arbitrary species difference. There is no given, or identifiable implied consent on the part of the non-human animal.

Scientific testing on non-human animals to extrapolate data for humans is bad science. Not only is non-human animal testing unnecessary thanks to increasing modern technological advances, making it increasing ethically unjustified, the fact is humans will never learn anything benefiting humans by studying on non-humans. Humans will only learn about animals by testing on animals. Everything we learn about animals has to be re-tested on humans to get accurate results. Extrapolation is not good science. Non-human animal testing not only limits scientific advance where humans are concerned, it is a danger to the safety of humans and animals en masse. In the case of diabetes, non-human animal testing stifled our understanding of the disease. “…in 1875, Hansemann concluded from experiments on dogs that that diabetes had nothing to do with the pancreas. It had already been found that diabetic patients excreted sugar in their urine, so extra sugar was given to them to compensate for this loss. In 1870 Bouchardat turned against this practice and recommended changes in the diet and exercise instead and this is acknowledged today as being a useful palliative. No animal experiments had been involved, only observation of humans. The animal model proved false.” In the case of Thalidomide, the drug was “designed to alleviate ‘morning sickness’ in pregnancy but resulted in deformed limbs in the children. In 1957, as incidences of the deformities came to be increasingly reported, the drug was given to scores of animals but no adverse effect could be found, until finally the White New Zealand rabbit replicated the ill-effects found on humans, and even then at a dose 25 to 300 times the dose given to humans. Then, in 1962, the drug was withdrawn, after having been marketed for 5 years and after over 10,000 children had been born crippled. This disaster should have demonstrated the futility of relying on animal models for testing drugs, but the lesson was ignored. Too much prestige and money was at stake.” (Link)

Broadly, it is just simply unnecessary to continue our history of animal exploitation in general. There is absolutely no reason any ethical human would seek to exploit any non-human animal for the reason that it is unnecessary, and to do so unnecessarily is unjustified. It is wrong.  Humans evolved past any need to exploit non-human animals in any way a long time ago. The only reason humans can give to justify a process as inefficient and unsustainable as exploiting animals for use as resources is pleasure; because of the taste of flesh or secretions, because of the feel or look of skin or fur, because of the “entertainment” value in watching non-human animals be exploited in movies, at circuses, rodeos, bullfights, etc., or because of the “sport” of hunting.  Human pleasure is not a good reason to violate the rights of animals, or to benefit from the suffering of others. What is necessary for the transformation of society and the emergence of a resource-based economy is for humans to recognize our moral obligation to respect the rights of animals to be free from exploitation and empathize with the non-human animals we use for enduring millennia of mostly unnecessary exploitation at the hands of humans. We must recognize that our anthropocentric view of existence and morality is false and needs to be eradicated. Our moral obligation to non-human animals could then be to try to raise their quality of life in the same proportions we human animals desire. It’s really the least we could do.


“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ” – Albert Einstein

Even the most sustainable agriculture that includes domesticated animals as a source of food is nowhere near sustainable, let alone humane, and all methods are inherently inefficient. Vegan diets require about one-sixth of an acre of land to satisfy food requirements for a person for a year. The average carnist diet requires about 20 times that.  Considering 99% of the meat, milk, and eggs is farmed in the most economically efficient way currently possible (factory farms), there is little argument to back up the “sustainable” animal farm myth.  Arguably, the current industrial non-human animal exploitation system, with its almost fully-mechanized mono-cropping and global crop distribution, “concentrated animal feeding operations” and almost fully-mechanized slaughterhouses, is a morbid glimpse into the enhanced production capabilities of machines and the immediate possibilities for the emergence of a resource-based economy. Even with most of the “production” costs externalized onto non-human animals, humans, and the environment, resulting in the most inhumane conditions, the industrial non-human animal agriculture system falls extremely short of being even remotely sustainable. The only way to create a system as close to as sustainable as plant agriculture would be to further concentrate factory farming, to the point of being 20 times more efficient! (And thus 20 times more inhumane!) This would be a biological feat, though.  Animals are reverse protein factories. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain (many more of grass), and up to 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of flesh. From a waste disposal standpoint, exploiting non-human animals is a travesty coupled with a burden. Non-human animals exploited for food in the U.S. produce 130 times the excrement of the entire population of humans. Nature has designed it to be a bad investment for humans to raise animals for food. The same goes for clothing. The amount of chemical pollutants produced in the tanning process combined with the health hazard to the individuals involved (non-human animals included) evidence the ridiculous and superfluous nature of this practice. But general statistics don’t really matter, because there are myriad ways to exploit animals that are less inefficient, or less inhumane, etc., and future methods of exploitation using advanced technology might be invented.  The bottom line is: The amount of resources harvested from an acre of permaculture far exceeds any form of animal exploitation in producing relevant, usable material, with a plethora more uses as raw material.  The current exploitation of animals for use as resources is extremely inefficient and unsustainable no matter the method, or the end use. However, the fact remains that even if the application of advanced technology made animal exploitation the most sustainable, environmentally friendly practice in the world, it would still be unethical because it is not necessary.

In relation to the sustainability and advancement of the entire human species, individual health is a big issue. The further we remove ourselves from close contact with confined non-human animals, the less zoonotic diseases can originate in non-human animals or be transferred across species. Most of our current contractable illnesses are thought to have stemmed from our exploitation and confinement of animals. Most of our other major diseases are either; caused by our ingestion of non-human animal flesh or secretions, or; prevented by  consuming a plant-based diet.

Physical Health

“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” -Hippocrates

Research into the effects of diet on health is sparse, which is odd considering western medicine is based on the teachings of Hippocrates. Doctors still swear his oath, “First, do no harm.” However, most western doctors have been indoctrinated by the Rockefeller accredited and funded propaganda that is used to maintain the zeitgeist of the health benefits of flesh and secretions. The captains of industry that financially supervise the accreditation process intentionally limit the information included on nutrition given to most M.D.s. Most M.D.s reportedly get only a few hours of nutrition education before accreditation.  What little nutrition advice doctors do get is bought and paid-for by the corporations intent on profiting from the research, meaning, not surprisingly, very few negative results are found about the companies-funding-the-research’s products or manufacturing methods.  Plain and simple, humans eating non-human animals’ flesh or secretions is a health disaster. The more a population consumes non-human animal flesh or secretions, the more preventable disease proliferates within that society. Flesh and secretions contain high levels of cholesterol, a compound not found in vegetation in any significant amount. Healthy humans produce all the cholesterol they will ever need in their liver. Dietary cholesterol contributes to atherosclerosis, clogging arteries and eventually stopping blood to the heart, and a host of other preventable diseases.  Flesh and secretions contain high levels of saturated fats, compounds found in few tropical plants. Saturated fats have been linked to obesity, coronary heart disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and a host of other preventable diseases. Flesh and secretions contain natural hormones, proteins, and chemicals that affect the human endocrine system, and have been liked to many cancers, type 1 and 2 diabetes, MS, and a host of other preventable diseases. Pregnant mammals such as cows release opioids into their milk to reinforce bonding between mother and cow. (When humans don’t steal it.)  Most of the world is lactose intolerant, but addicted to cheese. Any educated person can look at the biology, physiology, and anatomy of humans and easily conclude we are physically constructed to sustain a completely vegetarian diet.

Food-borne illness is a major health concern. Food-borne illnesses such E. Coli, salmonella, pfisteria, campylobacter, etc., arise when confinement, exploitation, slaughter, and handling are done in unsanitary conditions. Bacteria grow in unsanitary conditions. Feces have a tendency to contaminate flesh in mechanized systems. In simple terms the problem is this; if non-human animals are confined too much, they get sick. If they are in conditions that will make them sick untreated, we have to pump them full of antibiotics, vaccines and pesticides. If not confined enough, they become unprofitable, therefor unsustainable. We cannot feed an ever-increasing population an unlimited supply of non-human animal flesh and secretions with old-fashioned “sustainable” methods. The only way to feed an ever-increasing population of humans is to further confine non-human animals to increasingly unsanitary conditions, raising the risk of bacterial outbreak. Further, the non-human animal waste that contains the bacteria is used as fertilizer and is responsible for the outbreaks of food-borne illness in vegetable crops.  There is no chance of contracting a food borne illness in a food production system that does not include animals. The only reason we have to worry about E. Coli in spinach, or salmonella tomatoes is because of our confinement of animals to unsanitary conditions. Because of the inherent unsustainability of animal exploitation, producers are always looking for new ways to cut costs. One example is feeding non-human animals back to themselves. This is responsible for BSE, or “mad cow”. Examples like this spring up all over the animal exploitation industry- of corporations putting public health at risk to try and squeeze another penny out of an inherently flawed system; from ammonia-treated “beef” trimmings to animal flesh knowingly contaminated with E. Coli sold as “cook only”, from irradiated flesh to rBST, full circle to deliberately misleading the public about the negative health aspects of merely ingesting animal flesh and secretions themselves, not the bacteria contaminating them.

Zoonotic diseases in humans, spread from non-human animals to humans, are thought to be a direct result of confining animals in the first place. The spread of these diseases results from any confinement, not just factory-farms, but even the most “sustainable”, Polyface-style, farms. Intensive confinement just raises the ante, and creates suitable conditions for new, more dangerous diseases, increasingly resistant to antibiotics and vaccination. Here is a partial list of diseases we have “acquired” from our history of non-human animal confinement and exploitation, and the corresponding non-human animal to which each disease is attributed:

Tuberculosis – Goats

Measles – Cattle

Smallpox – Cattle

Anthrax – Sheep

Whooping Cough – Pigs

Typhoid Fever – Chickens

Influenza – Ducks

Leprosy – Water Buffalo

Common Cold – Cattle/Horses

Helicobacter Pylori – Sheep

Helicobacter Pullorum – Chickens

Hepatitis E – Pigs

Tularemia – Rabbits


Confining animals, even in the most ingenuitive of ways results in the spread of disease, and consumption of non-human animal flesh and secretion poses a risk to human health in general. Under the current system, the physical act of slaughter poses great risks to human safety. For the sake of profit, safety measures are routinely curtailed at the expense of the employees of mechanized slaughter operations that provide 99% of [American] non-human animal flesh. However, the fact remains that even if the application of advanced technology made animal exploitation the healthiest, least dangerous, most disease-free practice in the world, it would still be unethical because it is not necessary.

Nutritional science has discovered links between non-human animal flesh or secretion consumption and many neurological illnesses. Not only is there evidence that consumption of the flesh and secretions of non-human animals is detrimental to human mental health, there is psychological evidence to suggest that the practice of exploitation, especially slaughter, is detrimental to human mental health as well.

Mental Health

“Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.” – Leonardo Da Vinci

Just as the ingestion of non-human animal flesh and secretions detriment physical health and cause physical disease, natural hormones and sugars can detriment mental health. In one example, a study of schizophrenics, when cow’s milk was removed from their diet, none showed continuing symptoms of schizophrenia. When cow’s milk was reintroduced, all the previous symptoms of schizophrenia returned. What we put in or on our bodies can produce powerful unwanted effects on human neurological function. The effects of the ideology of carnism on the psyche, one example being “moral schizophrenia” or cognitive moral dissonance, are just beginning to be examined in literature and are evident in carnists’ ability to treat some non-human animals as members of the family, while simultaneously supporting the torture and murder of equally sentient beings on a constant basis through their consumption of the products, and financial support of the perpetrators, of animal exploitation. Another example of detriment to human mental health is the slaughter process. Humans have been shown to undergo physical and psychological trauma employed as slaughterhouse workers. Not only do humans “face serious physical health hazards”, but humans working in these positions witness and are party to, on a daily basis, “large-scale violence and death that most of the population will never have to encounter”.  It is hard to sympathize with mass killers and their abettors concerning trauma they have experienced in their chosen profession, when it is a voluntary act, but the fact remains that it is harmful to the psyche and to human mental health. However, even if the application of advanced technology made animal exploitation the least traumatic, most psychologically sound and safe practice in the world, it would still be unethical because it is not necessary.

In a society based on science, education, equality, justice, sustainability and peace; free from war, unnecessary violence, suffering, and exploitation; continuation of the longest holocaust – human use of non-human animals as resources – is simply not an option.  In our transition to a resource-based economy, one of the easiest things we can do on a personal level, to reduce the amount of suffering and death we contribute to, is abstain from exploiting, or supporting the exploitation of, non-human animals; hardly a “personal preference”. Veganism is a necessary and intrinsic part of the transition to a resource-based economy.  Non-human animal exploitation by humans is bad for non-human animals in multiple ways, it is bad for humans in multiple ways, it is bad for the environment in multiple ways, it is bad for science in multiple ways, it is unsustainable in multiple ways, but most importantly, it is morally wrong in multiple ways.

Jacque Fresco is not vegan, even though this philosophy can easily be adopted in the current monetary system we live in. However, were it an interest of his to research the philosophy of veganism, one can only assume he would agree with Einstein, Da Vinci, Pythagorus, Plato, Socrates, Francione, Yates,  and all the other great thinkers who recognize(d) our moral obligation to animals.

The Liberator: Remix – Issue 2 – Truisms

From The Liberator: Remix

January 8, 2010


  1. All sentient beings are born equal in suffering, and entitled to protection, excepting those whose flesh is tasty and hair woolly; or, to prevent mistake, excepting non-human animals, and their descendants.
  2. If humans are ignorant and depraved, they ought freely to receive the benefits of rights; but if non-human animals are in this condition, common sense dictates that they should be held in bondage, and their rights never respected.
  3. He or she who enslaves a human, or buys one of a kidnapper, deserves severe punishment. He or she who enslaves a sheep, or buys one of a thief, is blameless. Why? Because a sheep can be property, and a human cannot; because he or she is a human, and it an animal; (1) because the law asserts that this distinction is just—and law, we all know, is founded in equity; and because pure benevolence actuates in the one case, and downright villany in the other.
  4. The species of the being determines whether a being has a soul or not. If human, he or she has an immortal essence; if non-human, he or she is altogether beastly. Other primates, however, derive no benefit from this rule.
  5. The non-human animals ought to be held in fetters, because they are too stupid to take care of themselves; at least, we are not so stupid as to suffer them to make the experiment.
  6. To kidnap whales on the coast of Antarctica is a horrid crime, deservedly punishable with death; but he who steals other non-human animals, in this country, as soon as they are born, performs not merely an innocent but a praiseworthy act.
  7. In America, a man or woman who eats a dog, is a monster of hell. In Korea, he or she is an heir of heaven.
  8. A man has a right to heap unbounded execration upon the Japanese whale trade, and the abettors thereof; but if he utter a sentiment derogatory to the domestic traffic of pigs, chickens, cows, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, primates, rats, mice, snakes, spiders, bees, ladybugs, grasshoppers, deer, buffalo, or any other creature, or to those who assist in the transportation of victims, he is to be imprisoned for publishing a libel, and charged either under the “Veggie Libel Laws” or under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
  9. He who calls American non-human animal-slaveholders tyrants, is a fool, a fanatic, or a madman; but if he apologise for Orwellian governments, or a corporate aristocracy, set him down as a tory, and a traitor to his country.
  10. There is not the least danger of a rebellion among the ARA, the representatives of the non-human animal slaves; and even if they should revolt en masse, what could they do? Their united physical force would be utterly contemptible.
  11. None but fanatics or idiots desire immediate abolition. If the non-human animal slaves were liberated at once, our streets would be overrun, and all species of domestic animal extinct!
  12. Our non-human animal slaves’ consumers must be educated for freedom of choice. They must never learn what happens to the animals enslaved, because knowledge would teach them to throw off their yoke of disinformation.
  13. People in the animal rights movement have no right to alleviate physical suffering, or illumine spiritual darkness, to the public; but they have the right to “assist” the Afghanis, or the Iraqis, or any foreign nation.
  14. Were the non-human animal slaves’ supporters, goaded to desperation, to rise against their corporate masters, law enforcement are constitutionally bound to charge them with terrorism! “The blogger is as bad as the bomber.” The people receive and consume the productions of non-human animal slave labor! The District of Columbia is national property; non-human animal slavery exists in that District! Yet  the people are not involved in the guilt of non-human animal slavery!
  15. A farmer who fences animals, forces them to reproduce, steals their secretions and then kills them, is a hero, and deserves a monument. If a farmer cages animals, forces them to reproduce, steals their secretions and then kills them, he is a tyrant, and deserves to be jailed.
  16. The non-human animal slaves are kept in bondage for their own good. Liberty is a curse to the free non-human animals—their condition is worse than that of the non-human animal slaves! Yet it would be very wicked to bind them with fetters for their good!
  17. The non-human animal slaves are contented and happy. If sometimes they are so ingrateful or deluded as to abscond, it is pure philanthropy that induces their masters to offer a handsome reward for their detection.
  18. Animals have interests. Laws passed in California restricting the use of farrowing crates and battery cages were not enacted because it was supposed these brutes had interests, or for the sake of compliment, but are owing simply to an itch for superfluous legislation.
  19. Non-human animal slaves are held as property. It is the acme of humanity and justice, therefore, in our “humane handling” laws, to recognize them as moral patients, and require slightly less torture, and a slightly less painful death. It is also the acme of humanity and justice, therefore, in justifying using non-human animals as resources that, should we recognize non-human animals as moral patients, to recognise them also as moral agents, and punish them in the most aggravated manner, if they perpetrate a crime; though they cannot read, and have neither seen nor known the laws!
  20. It is foolish and cruel for an individual to denounce non-human animal slavery; because the more he disturbs the security of the corporate masters, the more vindictive will be their conduct toward the non-human animal slaves. For the same reason, we ought to prefer the products of non-human animal-slave labor to those of plant-based origin; as the more efficient, and therefore profitable, “humane” treatment becomes, the better they will be enabled to “humanely” exploit and “painlessly” kill their menials.
  21. To deny that a man is a christian or a republican, who holds non-human animal slaves and dooms their children to bondage, is most uncharitable and inconsistent.
  22. To say that a carnist is bound to follow his or her own precepts that causing animals to suffer or die unnecessarily is wrong, or to obey the golden rule, or the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill”, is preposterous.
  23. To doubt the religious vitality of a church, which holds the anthropocentric view of human domination, which has throughout history been largely composed of temples of sacrifice of non-human animals, and which justifies rape, torture, genocide and enslavement of humans and non-human animals in its texts, is the worst species of infidelity.
  24. The non human animals are our slaves—not because we like to oppress, or to make money unjustly—but because our “evolutionary fight to the top of the food chain” must be fulfilled and our palettes obeyed.
Original By William Lloyd Garrison

Remixed By Peace Is Coming For You

Next “The Liberator: Remix” Post: “Declaration Of Sentiments Adopted By Peace Is Coming For You”

Honest, Fair, “Humane”

Widget – (n.) |ˈwijit| A widget is a placeholder name for an object or, more specifically, a mechanical or other manufactured device. It is an abstract unit of production. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “An indefinite name for a gadget or mechanical contrivance, esp. a small manufactured item” and dates this use back to 1931.)

There are three main ways to kill animals for human use. All of these ways result in humans using animals as resources, even though eating animals or their secretions is clearly not necessary. Since all farm animals are eventually killed, those who produce milk or eggs are used as resources during their life, and again after their death. Domesticated animals are considered legal property, to be bought and sold, similar to an iPod, and used as resources like a head of lettuce, or copper. However, in some (non-legal) cases animals are considered persons; with names, celebrated birthdays, and Christmas stockings, and, although purchased originally, would never be thought of as property or sold, but as family. This is not limited to dogs and cats- pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, ducks, geese, and many other traditionally “food” animals are kept as “pets” in our society. People are charged with felony animal cruelty for committing the same acts against companion animals as we commit en masse to billions of so called “food” animals every year with little or no concern. We are clearly confused about how we ought to view and treat domestic animals.

Wild animals are usually considered as “common” resources, property of everyone, but an injured deer struck by an automobile can invoke sympathy and a sense of “personhood” from the same hunters who purposely kill deer on a regular basis. Most of us have compassion for suffering animals in our immediate presence, yet think nothing of killing, or paying someone else to kill, animals in general so we can use them merely as resources. It is only when we deem an animal as a person, for example a “pet” or companion animal, that we find a moral obligation to treat particular animals as people, not property, and choose not to eat, milk, or steal eggs from, that specific animal. If animals are property to be used as resources, why treat them different than any other resource? If animals are worthy of humane treatment, how can we treat them as resources? Could we treat a human as a resource, as property, and be humane? We are lying to ourselves if we think that there is a way to use animals as resources and be humane, regardless of the method, especially when all methods ultimately kill them in the end. It is because of our confusion about where animals lie on the property—>personhood spectrum that it is hard to know what’s honest, fair, and what’s just plain ol’ trickery when it comes to our use of animals as resources.

Factory farming is the most honest way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The factory farmer says simply, “You are my property. I’m going to use you as a resource, from the day I breed you, to the day I kill you. You are of economic importance to me, and that is it. I will use you as I see fit, like the property you are, and there is no reason for me to do anything but that which serves an interest of mine. And like a clock or a car, no one is to tell me how to treat my property. I will cut off your beak, gouge out your horns, mutilate your genitalia, violate you sexually, etc., with no regard for you as an individual” If we are to use animals simply as resources at all, factory farming is the most honest way to approach the use of the animals they kill- as nothing but resources. Factory farmers kill for money, and that’s all there is to it. Animals are born widgets.

Hunting is the fairest way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The hunter says, “If I catch up with you, I will turn you from common property into my property by killing you. I’m going to use you simply as a resource. I’m not going to imprison or torture you, just kill you. I’ll even give you a (very small) chance of escaping and surviving.” Besides the fact that many of the “wild” animals hunted are bred by wildlife authorities, the animals that are hunted at least get to live out some of their truly natural life before being stalked and killed. Also, the animals hunted are usually not slow-moving and docile like domestic cows or pigs, but agile and quick animals (for the thrill of the chase). Because of the animal’s ability to easily evade us, humans have devised tools and methods to make up for certain shortcomings of our physical abilities. The sadistically violent and inhumane methods hunters use to lure, trap, track, stalk, kill, disembowel and dismember carcasses are stunningly atrocious and not very honest or fair, but I don’t think the animal would engage in a “fair” fight even if the hunter were bold enough to challenge… Hunting is not fair, it’s just the fair-est of the three. However, the more tools one uses, the less fair it gets. The fairest hunter would leave the gun, bow, or knife at home and use his or her highly advanced physical predatory prowess to chase and catch a wild animal, tear into the animal’s jugular with his or her razor sharp human incisors in the most “humane” way possible, and rip open the tough hide with his or her extremely sharp human claws. Most hunters have access to all the slow-moving, plant-based food they could ever eat and don’t have to purposefully kill animals. Seeds cost less than bullets. While hunters might be the fairest, they still reduce the animals they hunt to being nothing but resources. Serial-killers kill for pleasure. Whether it’s the “thrill of the chase”, the taste of the flesh, or the decapitated head on the wall, hunters kill for pleasure, and that’s all there is to it. Hunters transform animals from wild to widgets.

“Humane” farming is the most fiendishly dishonest and hypocritical way to kill an animal for his or her flesh.

The “humane” farmer says, “You are my property, but I’ll treat you like a person for a short while. I’ll consider some of your basic wants and needs, and possibly even befriend you. You will come to trust me. You will trust that I will feed you and keep you safe. I will still control your breeding, violate you sexually, and mutilate your genitalia, but hopefully you won’t hold it against me. As long as it serves my superficial interests, I’m going to use you as a resource; as merely chattel property and then kill you.” “Humane” farmers recognize some moral obligation to animals, and might act on it somewhat and for a short time, until it serves their superficial interests to negate that obligation by ending the life they claim to care so much about. A better term would be “temporarily less inhumane” farmers. Sure, as a chicken, I’d choose the “temporarily less inhumane” farmer, but in the end I know I’ll die at both of their hands, so neither is really a good option. It seems as though “humane” farmers are at once friend and enemy. They are the ultimate backstabbers. They are your best-friend that fucked your wife- for years. They are the “it’s just business” talk from the company you’ve been “downsized” from after 30 years. They are the tranny from “Crying Game”. “Humane” farmers are Judases. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, excuse the lame pun, but it fits well. These farmers actually have themselves convinced that they are in the best interest of the animals they kill. (I don’t think the animals are buying it, but what can they do?) Some farmers even go as far to say that they are keeping the animals safe from predators. I don’t think the chicken cares who steals her eggs, or who he or she gets eaten by… and I think I’d rather take my chances on the other side of the fence, thanks. They are deceiving themselves and they are taking many otherwise intelligent people with them. “Humane” farmers treat animals slightly better than factory farmers to try and reconcile deviating from their own recognized moral obligations to the animals they kill for money, and that’s all there is to it. “Humane” farmers pretend to care about their widgets, but in the end, the animals are widget’s nonetheless.

So what is a person to do? Be honest with yourself about how you think you ought to view animals. If animals are nothing but resources, widgets, then we owe them no moral obligation, and factory farms and hunting are for you! If we do owe them some form of moral obligation, let’s not lie to ourselves and hide behind a crude facade of friendliness and humanity which ultimately amounts to slightly less torture with the same deadly end, and instead treat all animals as persons, not as resources. If we consider a dog and a cow both people, we won’t eat or wear either. If we consider a cat and a pig both merely property or resources for humans to use, we will use both however we please. But to eat one and not the other is not honest, or fair. To pretend that we have the interests of the animals at heart when our true interests lie on our plates is cruelly deviant, and we are only lying to ourselves and displaying our confusion about our relationship to animals when we differentiate between animals arbitrarily. As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, “Some animals are more equal than others.” Though Orwell was not [metaphorically] talking about animals in Animal Farm, this statement holds true of our relationships with animals. Most consider all humans equal, but some animals are considered people and some are considered property and used as resources. We are deceiving ourselves if we think we can continue thinking like this. Until we choose how we are to categorize animals, property/resources or persons, we will always be debating how we should be using them. Unless we choose not to use them at all, and then the debate is over.

If this seems too black-and-white, consider slavery, racism, sexism, heterosexism. Are there grey areas here? Consider the humane slavery analogy; would anyone entertain an argument from a “humane” slave owner who advocates the enslavement of some people to benefit the greater good? It is easy to see through that argument, once one recognizes our moral obligation to humans directly contradicts our use of them as resources. “Humane” slavery is an anachronism which is just as oxymoronic as “humane” farming. If one recognizes our already existing and widely accepted moral obligation to animals, no logical moral conclusion can be drawn that includes using animals as resources.

Peace is coming for you. Go vegan and speed up the process.