Law is the biggest obstacle to social change. It is the weapon of those in power against those who are not in power.
It is touted as the great achievement of civilization, without which there would be chaos and injustice.
In actuality, law is the method governments use to create and perpetrate injustice. It is the justification for state action against individuals, against minorities, against the weak, the disenfranchised, the oppressed. And it is the weapon that is used against those trying to change government or reform society.
Every horror perpetrated or tolerated by governments against people was legal. The extermination of Native Americans was legal. Slavery was legal. The Nazi Holocaust was legal. Stalin’s genocides were legal. The murders of innocents in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya were all legal.
Similarly, governments pass laws to prevent challenges to the status quo. So aiding Native Americans was illegal, harboring slaves was illegal, hiding Jewish people was illegal, Blacks sitting at white-only lunch counters was illegal, refusing to commit murder for the government is illegal. Sedition is illegal, taking up arms against the government is illegal, revolution is illegal. And so is saving animals from exploitation and murder.
The US government adopted the outrageous Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act (AETA) which is aimed at animal activists who disrupt animal agriculture. It was written by Big Ag and introduced by Sens. Feinstein and Inhoffe, both puppets of Big Ag and Wall Street.
Animal Rights activists are not plentiful enough to interfere with the ongoing Animal Holocaust (in which 60 billion animals are slaughtered each year) let alone prosecute armed insurrection.
The Animal Holocaust is growing. The number of vegans is declining as a percentage of the exploding world population.
Proselytizing, educating, and imploring, others to stop the murder of innocent animals is not working.
A more desperate and effective course of action is required.
Insurrection and social revolution are the only hope for animals.
Our legal systems allow the horrors of animal agriculture and industrialized murder because animals are mere property.
Capitalists drive the horrors for the purpose of making money on the corpses of animal victims, the legal systems permits them to do so, governments protect them, and religions condone the cruelty.
Every human legal system considers non-human animals to be property. There are the odd statutory protections afforded to certain animals under certain circumstances, but legal systems can accurately be said to be indifferent to the suffering and exploitation of animals.
Human civilization has been an ongoing struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors, of might makes right, of those in power controlling those who are not in power,
Animals have no way of fighting back against their oppressors, and the oppression of animals has been greater than any oppression in human history, by several orders of magnitude. All the people who have been killed in all wars in human history are fewer than the number of animals humans will murder in the next 3 days.
Animal Rights asserts that animals have the rights to be free of exploitation, cruelty, slavery, and murder. The same rights we humans declare for ourselves.
People who support Animal Rights are an insignificant minority in the population. Which is why we must ally ourselves with other opponents of capitalism and the corrupt fascist systems which control governments around the world.
We must join together to bring about social revolution everywhere.
There is not a government on Earth which grants rights to animals. Not one which makes it illegal to kill sentient beings. None which militate for human and animal liberation.
For the animals, the entirety of humans is a race of Nazis. For Animal Rights activists, all human societies are the enemy, as are all the world’s governments, most people, every major religion, and most minor ones.
Humans are exploiting and murdering animals at a greater rate now than ever before in history.
The only way to stop the carnage and the horrors is to force people to stop.
Through violent revolution.
And that cannot occur until we reach the critical mass of dissidents and social unrest necessary to sustain revolution.
Growing that critical mass should be the primary objective of animal activists.
Author’s Notes:
Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance.
Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot
You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!
Armory of the Revolution 
To fully achieve full rights for all living beings we must accept we are at WAR. This a war that will see many, many battles, some we will loose; many we will win or at least set in motion to ability for success (Cecil’ Law); we cannot rest on our laurels we must stay ever vigilant and ever ready for the next battle. Yes there will be violence- hunters will not willingly or meekly lay down their weapons or stop the slaughter of the defenseless, the dairies and abattoirs will not surrender easily either BUT we have the numbers to win, we have the committment to win and should we lose- the true losers will be those without a voice- THE ANIMALS!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Dianne,
I wish you were right, but i fear we don’t have the numbers to win. At least not that i see in the environment i live in. Still, to have a revolution we need to start one and not just talk about one and starting is not easy and hasn’t happened…….yet.
Thanks for your post.
Rich
LikeLiked by 1 person
“With evil legal eagles, you know I couldn’t last.” – Moz. How hypocritical is the law? Killing animals with malice aforethought is considered good faith fair dealing according to the law. What morons buy it?
LikeLike
THIS WILL STOP
LikeLike
The article is extreme and fatalist. There is at least one other avenue. See the link below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/sunday-review/blessed-be-my-freshly-slaughtered-dinner.html?emc=edit_th_20150906&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57575995&_r=1
LikeLike
Another avenue? The Eat-What-You-Kill movement?
Are you serious?
Those who kill other creatures, whether in person or by proxy, are the enemy.
The animals they kill have as much right to live as we have. Eliminating those who kill is the entire point of the article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A kind, forgiving, man was put to death 2000 years ago because he got violent over witnessing the slaughter of animals.
LikeLike
Pingback: Hayvan haklarının gerçekleşmesi için şiddete başvurmak gerekecek mi? | Hayvan Özgürlüğü Çevirileri
Pingback: Hayvan haklarının gerçekleşmesi için şiddet başvurmak gerekecek mi? | Hayvan Özgürlüğü Çevirileri
Thanks for stating the obvious (and I don’t mean that sarcastically!). Even a cursory examination of history reveals that no revolutionary social movement has ever succeeded without violence. Power and privilege concede nothing without a fight, never have and never will. Violence has been the inevitable mid-wife to the birth of every revolutionary political change that has ever taken place. But being realistic, if you lined up every animal rights supporter with all the weaponry at their disposal on one side of a field and all those opposed to the cause they advocate on the other side, we’d be dead in about 5 seconds. Even if you allied yourself with every other purportedly revolutionary movement on the planet, we’d last a few minutes longer but still be dead in the end. The only viable option for entering into combat with the vast hordes that profit from animal slaughter and suffering and their political infra-structure is to adopt the tactics of asymmetrical (guerrilla) warfare where you hit-and-run at random sites and try to wear down your enemy gradually over time. And who knows, maybe at some point manage to ignite a conflagration that ultimately burns down the whole rotten system. Just like John Brown’s seemingly futile and at-the-time widely condemned gesture at Harper’s Ferry is now seen as the opening volley of the American Civil War.
Where to start? Well, just to conjure a totally hypothetical scenario out of thin air let’s say there is this infamous trophy hunter responsible for killing a number of endangered species and which existing law won’t or can’t touch. Can’t touch precisely because the existing law is formulated to protect just such miscreants and preserve the unjust social order. So, some brave soul effects an extra-judicial execution. The assassin would have to realize that he will probably be caught so it is in essence a one-time “suicide mission.” And he could absolutely count on all the humane society luminaries issuing condemnations from their plush office suites because, as we’ve all been taught by the existing power-structure to mouth in unison, violence solves nothing. But his self-sacrificial deed would have tangible results, besides permanently removing one very ugly person badly in need of removal from the world. It would draw media attention to the whole matter of trophy hunting as nothing else could, it would put at least a tiny sliver of fear in the hearts of other celebrity trophy hunters, and it would attract new recruits to the cause as never before because as the 19th Century revolutionary Peter Kropotkin said (and I never tire of repeating because it rings so true): “one audacious act gains more followers than a thousand books (or blogs!) which if not translated into action become nothing more than collectors of dust.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find the hypothetical of removing one “ugly person” as a way of generating further media attention and possibly attracting new recruits reprehensible. It wouldn’t have “tangible results.” Also, audacious acts occur every day. This particular audacious hypothetical, if executed, would be nothing more than a pile of dust a month from now.
Perhaps we over-estimate our moral potential. Anyone who writes on this site is a moral hypocrite. If we can judge the killing of animals morally wrong, then one less Cecil might make the world a safer place for some critters. Why shouldn’t our morality include–as Roland suggests–the elimination of natural killers (yes, carnivores)?
We can’t blame other animals for lacking our moral sophistication, right? Only self-righteous men can be judged morally, right?
LikeLike
Why, precisely, is it “reprehensible”? Because the taking of human life is involved? Only an unrepentant speciesist would find taking a human life to prevent the further needless killing of non-human animals reprehensible. In fact it is no more or less morally objectionable than killing a mad dog to prevent that animal from spreading rabies or killing a serial killer to prevent him from further serial killing. If that is not “tangible” I don’t know what is. Not to mention the small, but tangible, benefit of helping to balance the scales of universal justice which are seemingly ever weighted towards human interests, no matter how trivial.
No serious person blames “dumb animals” for following their carnivorous instincts, honed over the course of millions of years of evolution. Non-human animals are not moral agents, human beings are. And when the latter behave in a bestial fashion towards their neighbors they forfeit their “right” to live peaceably and deserve the strongest of sanctions. I’m not sure that Roland ever meant to suggest that carnivorous species of non-human animals be purged from the planet because of their dietary habits. The telos of a predatory species is to dispatch prey, not to ponder the moral implications of what it is doing. Only humans, so far as we know, possess the latter capacity and with it comes the potential to do good or to do evil. And I can think of no example of purer evil at play in the world than someone claiming moral agency but who kills for fun. Added to that is the fact that no carnivorous species on the planet comes remotely close to the avariciousness and gratuitous cruelty of the human species, so much so that the planet is now facing a loss of biodiversity not equaled since an asteroid plowed into Yucatan. You can’t hate an asteroid since it simply follows the laws of gravity and you can’t blame predatory species like wolves and lions since they simply obey the laws of nature. But you can very rationally hate individuals who have the power of choice over what they do and choose to do evil. So, you can call me self-righteous but what I’d like to see is the moral degenerates among us, trophy hunters being the prime example that springs to mind, rendered non-functional. Rendered non-functional by, as Malcolm X put it, any means necessary.
The hypothetical scenario wherein a trophy hunter is assassinated might indeed be but a pile of dust a month, or maybe even only one news cycle, after the fact. But it would at least be an indelible public statement about how seriously some of us view the atrocious way humans routinely treat non-human animals. And possibly inspire others to forego impotent hand-wringing in favor of courageous acts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unfortunately, there are serious followers of Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy who condemn predators for engaging in their natural behavior. Roland, to his credit, avoids this conclusion, even though he generally adheres to utilitarianism. See his article on this blog https://armoryoftherevolution.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/in-defense-of-genocide-2/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoff,
The assassination of one animal killer amid billions of human animal killers (meat eaters) who may do so at arm’s length in this world is silly and misguided. This act would be “indelible” for you and a few others–and I am sure this would give you a bit of solace for a time. Moral agency with all people in this world is a potential which is relative in its expression, not absolute in its comprehension. You may think yourself perfectly moral, but it isn’t so.
I don’t know what evil is. You may restrict evil to humans, but I witness in many other species behaviors which would indicate to me a cognition which knows it is doing harm to others. Don’t you grant your dog a bit of moral agency?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jerry, if you don’t believe in an absolute evil or good you are sounding distressingly like a moral relativist, with whom any discussion of ethics is a non-starter. I grant my dog enough moral agency to know that she shouldn’t climb up on the kitchen table and help herself to whatever is there. But that doesn’t mean the dog recognizes the difference between abstractions like good and evil. She just knows that if she’s caught in the act, unpleasantness will follow. Cats torturing a mouse to death are definitely cruel but it is quite a stretch in my worldview to call them “evil”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geoff,
You definitely made it known to me you are the owner and dictator of your conscripted companion (?) animal. I think there is something evil about abominating a species and keeping it as property. (We diminish the environment in the name of this one species with all the products we manufacture for them.)
I know, you are a gentle master.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jerry, it helps to know whereof you speak. I do not consider the dog my property nor was she “conscripted” as a pet for purposes of flattering my vanity. She was a stray that showed up at the door one day and that I took in out of pity and to spare her a likely crueler fate. I’d much prefer to live without dependents like dogs or cats but they find me, not the reverse! I’d prefer even more that no such surplus animals were ever born into the world, but they are nevertheless here, now, in need of a little kindness. I’m a little uneasy about some of the folks who contribute to this column who don the cloak of moral superiority and condemn people who rescue or provide homes for animals in need. The whole issue of indirectly supporting the killing or exploitation of one domestic animal to feed another domestic animal or wild animal in rehabilitation is, I believe, one of the most difficult and contentious questions in animal rights; and glib declarations that feral cats or injured hawks that are, after all, strict carnivores or wild baby animals dependent on cow-derived milk replacers are better off dead than provided sustenance is simplistic and dogmatic. I rear injured or orphaned wild bats that I come across for release. The only practical diet for them is live mealworms. One bat may consume 25 to 50 mealworms a day. Is it better to let the bat die than to sacrifice hundreds of mealworms, which I do believe are sentient, to keep it alive? It’s a question I wrestle with and really don’t know the answer. I guess I could sit back in my room and spend all my time expressing highfalutin thoughts on the computer, but anyone who goes outside and interacts in the real world will eventually have to confront this sort of ethical quandary.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Please don’t presume to know how I interact with nature. I am also confronted with similar situations in regard to critters who seem to need assistance, but I won’t get into this matter right now.
Well, at least you admit of moral ambiguity, because it seemed as if the ethics of your metaphysics was absolutely formed.
Please don’t deny we kill a lot of animals in support of a couple of preferred ones. We don’t need to be doing this–period!
I don’t interpret the intentional killing of one species for the benefit of another species morally problematic, because I don’t directly participate in, condone, or endorse this obvious prejudice. Because you have decided a bat needs to be rescued, others will die? I’m trying to figure out how, at a very fundamental level, you are any different from Mr. Palmer.
But, please don’t get me wrong. I’m not beyond condemnation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jerry, do you honestly believe that there is no moral difference between a trophy hunter like Palmer and a person who takes care of cats or dogs? This sort of absolutist veganist moralism is the reason I do not identify with veganism.
Geoff, I assume that the bats you rehabilitate have, for the most part, been injured or orphaned by human activity. I do not see any moral quandary in taking care of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Keeping pets in this country is an institution; it is big business; it is a prejudice. People seem to think these pets are magically fed with berries from a fairy we can’t see. Well, the truth is this: the livestock we raise in this country or import for our consumption isn’t done just for us, it is also done for our pets. Any time I read literature which reports humans consume x-number of livestock per year, I always mentally correct this figure to read: humans and their preferred pets consume x-number of livestock per year.
I don’t know what the confusion about this reality is. I don’t participate in it. I don’t condone it. I don’t endorse it. For those who do, If sacrificing the life of a lamb for your preferred canine isn’t morally problematic for you, I understand. We are all confronted by tough moral decisions. I just feel sorry for the lamb because his species doesn’t typically fit the pet profile.
LikeLike
Thank you, Marc. You always contribute considered, wise counsel to all of these discussions, here and elsewhere on the web.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is so much to think about in this blog. The issue of violence and when, how, and what kind are fuel enough for multiple comments. But here I have a few thoughts about people making allies to fight common problems.
“People who support Animal Rights are an insignificant minority in the population, which is why we must ally ourselves with other opponents of capitalism and the support fascisst systems whcih control governments around the world.”
That is what I have thought also, assuming that people who have been the victims of economic exploitation or religious persecution would be empathetic when confronting so much animal abuse and would seek to help. Presumably people of some some oppressed groups are involved, such as Alex Hershaft of FARM. However, some human social justice groups still believe in the gulf that custom, religion, and law assert separates us from the rest of creation. For example, one would expect women to be especially sympathetic to the animal rights movement, having suffered many of the same abuses that animals, and especially female animals, suffer. Dairy cows are victims of artificial insemination that some have called “rape.” Later their calves are taken away from them for more human profit, as the children of slaves once were. Cows, pigs, and chickens are valued for their fertility and their lives have no value aside from constant reproduction. Yet some women refuse accept that connection because, to them, it means being compared to nonhuman animals.
One would also expect members of other social justice groups to, again, think about animals as fellow beings who have been exploited out of greed, who experience all the abuses that arise from the concept of animals as “property,” or who are somehow just as unworthy or undesirable.Yet, when Marjorie Spiegel wrote The Dreaded Comparison to describe how the same ideology justified slavery and animal exploitation, many were offended that animals could be compared to human slaves. When Charles Patterson wrote Eternal Treblinka to compare the billions of animals being relentlessly killed to the Holocaust because they are considered “less than human,” many people were outraged at that use of “Holocaust.” VINE Sanctuary had a discussion on its blog recently after someone texted “animal lives matter.” The blog explained why we should not use that expression because it is offensive to the black community. So apparently some of the groups we are hoping would join animal rights advocates have claimed an intellectual “copyright” on terms and concepts we must not appropriate.
We also have an opponent in political correctness, and here it gets really problematic since PC is used as a weapon to silence speech and opposition. Currently we hear “racism” and “bigotry” and “xenophobia” as accusations in issues over diversity. Sometimes those words are, indeed, justified. But often they are accusations made when people are talking about customs or traditions, not races or people. I believe this is something animal rights groups and advocates need to think about as more countries try to come to terms with multiculturalism.
The question is, What will animal advocates do when the traditions and customs of other cultures and religions result in more animal suffering? We will we asked to acquiesce? For example, do we want to see more halal slaughter? Do we want to ignore the terrible kinds of animal sacrifice going on in Florida and other places in the name of “religion”? Do we have to become accustomed to more backyard slaughter of even “pet” animals for food? Do we need to accept charro horse tripping into the already terrible abuses of the rodeo?
At some point, we may have to decide if we are going accept more animal mistreatment in the name of diversity, even as we continue to fight the old battles. If we choose to fight for the animals, we will offend some people and risk being called racists or bigots or misanthropes for “putting animals first.” If we give in, then we will be traitors to the innocent animals that have so few voices and fighters on their side.
Just thoughts from one who has been working at this a long time and realizing that we have so much more to do. And it is getting harder.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I can’t give a star because I lost my password, but this article, in my estimation, was right on point. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article is good. BUT it says
“Humans are exploiting and murdering animals at a greater rate now than ever before in history.
The only way to stop the carnage and the horrors is to force people to stop.
Through violent revolution. And that cannot occur until we reach the critical mass of dissidents and social unrest necessary to sustain revolution.
Growing that critical mass should be the primary objective of animal activists.”
The issue i have is the contradiction i see. We in animal rights are a miniscule number and probably dwindling in percentage. So growing our numbers, for the purpose of revolution seems almost hopeless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to have overlooked the definitive paragraph:
“People who support Animal Rights are an insignificant minority in the population. Which is why we must ally ourselves with other opponents of capitalism and the corrupt fascist systems which control governments around the world.”
Animal Rights activists alone are unlikely to ever exist in sufficient numbers to prosecute a revolution or to control human society.
We must build and join in wide leftist coalitions to end capitalism.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Species and Class.
LikeLiked by 2 people