Revenge is Sweet, But an Expensive Indulgence

revenge.png

If you are at all like me, you wince at the horrors depicted in our newsfeeds, and cringe at the cruelty we see inflicted on our fellow creatures by unfeeling POS that pass for human beings.

And if you are at all like me, you fantasize about payback.

Even if we could exact revenge on the scumbags that brutalize and murder animals, revenge does nothing to restore the lives of their victims. All revenge does is gratify our own need for justice.

And if we are captured and prosecuted we will have accomplished nothing at all.
A different standard of direct action applies to preventing animal abuse and murder. To saving lives as opposed to memorializing them.

We should work toward taking out the killers before they kill.

Everyone who works in the slaughter industry is guilty of murder.

Every driver of livestock trucks, every field hand at factory farms, every day laborer at feed lots, every executive and secretary working at a slaughterhouse. Every person on the slaughterlines, from the drivers with the cattle prods to the thugs with the bolt guns to the grunts with the knives, the chainsaws, the bone saws, the scalding tanks.

Just doing one’s job, or just trying to feed one’s family, are hardly justification for murder. Guards at Auschwitz, who were merely following orders, were nonetheless prosecuted for war crimes. Had we a non-speciesist legal system, the same standard would apply to animal murderers who plead that they are following orders of others.

Morally, there is no defense to murder, regardless of species.

The basic premise of animal rights is that all sentient beings have the same right to live and to be free from exploitation. The view that humans have a superior right to life is speciesism.

Speciesism is the universal enemy of animals. Animal activists must not buy into the premise that murdering some Earthlings is acceptable while murdering other Earthlings is not.

For example, accepting the speciesist argument that religious zealots who kill people (ISIS, for example) are distinguishable from religious zealots who kill animals (mainstream practitioners of Islam, as an example) reinforces speciesism and undermines the very core of animal rights.

Direct action has largely been ineffective and wasteful of animal movement resources. The Animal Liberation Front, founded by my friend Ronnie Lee, has judiciously avoided violence and has inflicted only economic injury in its attacks on animal exploitation targets. The net result of such attacks is primarily to raise public awareness and to raise animal exploitation industry insurance premiums. Little dissuasive effect has resulted from such direct action. Fur farms re-capture their mink, fur stores file insurance claims, restaurants continue to sell veal and fois gras.

Animal liberationists must turn their sights upon the killers, not just on the buildings in which they work.

Sabotaging trucks and destroying cages are ineffective tactics to thwart animal enslavement and murder. The most effective direct action is that which will substantially raise the cost of producing animal corpses, while focusing media and public attention on the horrors of the Animal Holocaust, attacks on the killers themselves, and on those who own the slaughterhouses.

If those goals were achieved with every liberationist raid, direct action will have been worth the risk of capture and prosecution.

But an even greater effect may be realized. Direct action against the boards of directors of animal exploitation industries, Big Oil, Big Coal, etc, could ignite social revolution against the capitalist system.

Revolution must be our long term goal. Capitalism is the primary cause of most of the animal cruelty, exploitation, and murder in the world.

All who oppose capitalism are our allies. The animals’ allies. Even if they don’t give a damn about animals. Because socialism, by its very nature, reduces the number of animals that are enslaved and murdered.

Socialism removes the profit incentive from animal agriculture. The result is that socialist societies murder and consume half the animals per capita as do capitalist societies.

Worldwide socialism would mean saving THIRTY BILLION animals each year. That is Thirty Thousand Million! 30,000,000,000 innocent lives that would not be sacrificed on the altar of capitalism!

That fact alone should make every animal activist a socialist revolutionary.

 

 

Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• 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, economics, 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!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Revenge is Sweet, But an Expensive Indulgence

  1. If anything is in the works it won’t be discussed here, folks. Dark Web. Learn it. That’s the place to be specific.

    Like

  2. Thoughts to think about, Roland! I have a question regarding where you wrote, “The most effective direct action is that which will substantially raise the cost of producing animal corpses, while focusing media and public attention on the horrors of the Animal Holocaust, attacks on the killers themselves, and on those who own the slaughterhouses.”

    Can you provide more details on or examples of what the “effective direct action” action consists of and involves?

    If we are to follow ALF’s example of not causing harm to any living being, and we aren’t simply going after revenge, what should the “attacks on the killers themselves, and on those who own the slaughterhouses” involve and consist of?

    Thanks! Happy TGIF! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • I believe our short term goal should be to target the owners of slaughterhouses, the members of the boards of directors of Big Ag, the lobbyists who carry water and bribes for the exploitation industries. They will circle the wagons, of course, but two things would immediately occur. First, the entirety of slaughter practices and statistics would be explored and reported by the media as never before in history, and second, the ongoing threat to the safety of Big Ag executives will result in drastic security measures that would drive up the costs of meat, egg, and dairy production.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Thanks for the reply, Roland. Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like I’m mentally challenged, but I’m still not clear on actual specific actions to employ that would accomplish these things. I guess I’m speaking from my own naivety on things.

        What does the “target” consist of in “target the owners of slaughterhouses, the members of the boards of directors of Big Ag, the lobbyists who carry water and bribes for the exploitation industries”?

        How would this lead to the media exploring and reporting those things, when the media is way deep in the pockets of big ag (mainstream media at least)? They don’t have the backbone to actually do the job they should be doing because they’re afraid of losing commercial dollars from McDonalds and WalMart.

        I can’t help but think that when the wagons circle, the large majority of the media will actually join in the circle themselves, and won’t do any real & substantive exploring or reporting on those who’ve paid for the media’s wagons in the first place. Big ag is the mainstream media’s bread & butter.

        What would the “ongoing threat” consist of in “the ongoing threat to the safety of Big Ag executives will result in drastic security measures that would drive up the costs of meat, egg, and dairy production”?

        Are these simply tactics that fall within ALF guidelines, but shifting the targets and the focus?

        Thanks again & sorry if I’m missing something in my naivety.

        Like

      • The ALF (Animal Liberation Front) limits their attacks to personal property and has never harmed anyone. Even so, under the Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act (AETA) anyone who interferes with animal exploitation businesses is considered a terrorist, and is treated like a Muslim jihadist or an ISIS murderer.

        Many in the animal movement criticize the ALF as wasteful of movement resources, as being more symbolic than effective in liberating animals, and in accomplishing little mo0re than raising the insurance premiums of mink farmers. All valid complaints. But I believe the problem is not direct action, but the direction of direct action.

        A more strategic gameplan for the ALF would be to target those who profit from animal exploitation and murder, and making it an unattractive and unacceptable risk to sit on the boards of Bog Ag companies.

        This is in no way possible until we have sufficient numbers of animal warriors willing to engage in direct action.

        Liked by 2 people

      • If only the mainstream media could actually report the truth to the masses…I don’t think there’d be any need for any ALF tactics or direct action if that were the case.

        If everybody watching the news, or reading the paper, or going to the major media’s websites and would see what we’ve seen and what we know is the truth, I have no doubt we’d have more than sufficient numbers of animal warriors joining our ranks.

        But hopefully once things were to reach that point, there wouldn’t be any need or anybody to engage in direct action anyway, because the public would be demanding change in too large of a number to ignore.

        Unfortunately, this scenario is very unlikely to happen and puts a lot of faith in the public, but I can’t help look at all the dominoes and see that if the “media domino” would fall (and do it’s job), then the other dominos of big ag, factory farming, etc., would be knocked down in turn.

        Wishful thinking… 😦

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s