Animal Rights Advocates are Almost a Separate Species

homo2

Humans view the world through the lens of species superiority. According to this worldview, no animal’s life is worth a human’s. Nor are multiple animals’ lives worth a single human life.

Logically, there must be some ceiling on the concept, some point at which an animal population is worth more than a human life. But if such a limit exists, I have yet to find a speciesist to acknowledge it, or even one to suggest what such a limit might be.

Is a human life worth a hundred animals’ lives?  A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Millions? Those who value human life above all others apparently consider a human life as valuable as all other life on Earth. To animal advocates, the idea is as preposterous as it is pernicious.

Animal Rights advocates believe each sentient life is as valuable as any other sentient life. Species is of no consequence.

da vinci

Such a position is at odds with most of humanity, all the world’s governments and legal systems, and every major religion.

It makes us the allies of life and the enemies of most people.

Animal Rights advocates are pursuing the most radical changes in human civilization in history. We seek to end the ownership of animals and their subjugation by humans.

The Animal Rights movement is not just some touchy-feely-be-kind-to-animals movement.

The Animal Rights movement threatens the very foundations of human civilization. It undermines the legitimacy of every government on Earth. It repudiates every major religion and most minor ones. It dismisses ridiculous human concerns, petty issues, regional rivalries, disputes and jealousies.

Animal Rights requires a total revamp of human values. Of human relationships. Of human loyalties and human conduct.

It means rejecting religion, law, and government as we know them.

The difference between Animal Rights activists and the overwhelming majority of humans is so profound that it is almost akin to being members of separate species.

Only from that perspective can we see the horrors that humans engage in with alacrity and indifference.

Animal Rights can never be achieved through gradualism or appealing to human ethics and senses of morality and justice.

For Animal Rights to succeed, the systems of law and economics must be destroyed. Every legal system permits animal ownership as a basic property right of people and businesses. Almost all animal cruelty, exploitation, torture, and murder is committed in pursuit of profit. Private property is the Holy Grail of capitalism, and will never be relinquished in favor of ethical treatment of animals.

howmany

Governments protect those who torture and exploit animals, religions condone the horrors, capitalism encourages and rewards animal murder.

Animal Rights cannot exist under capitalism. We may succeed in winning minor victories on animal welfare and protection issues, but the Animal Holocaust is a trillion dollar industry. It would be a political impossibility to end the Animal Holocaust at the ballot box. As capitalists own our candidates, legislators, and regulatory officials, and the government itself, the slaughter industries have the power of the state behind them.

Socialist societies murder and consume half the animals, per capita, as do capitalist societies. The combined effect of removing profit from production, centrally planned and regulated industry, bureaucratic inefficiency, etc, means fewer animals are bred, murdered, and butchered. On a global scale, socialism would mean 30 BILLION fewer animals dying each year on slaughterhouse floors than are murdered now. It would mean one and a quarter TRILLION fewer sea creatures killed each year.

And this would be under socialist societies which did not care a whit about animals. The effect of socialist economics alone would save more lives than thirty thousand of our current animal movements.

I arrive at that figure because over the last 50 years the animal movement has been responsible for saving the lives of a mere million or so animals per year. To have the same effect on reducing animal murder as socialism would have, we would need to be 30,000 times bigger than we are as a movement. Each and every animal activist, rescuer, adopter, transporter, donor, crossposter, emailer, protester, letter writer, phone caller, voter, would need to be multiplied by 30,000!

This simple truth should cause every animal activist to become a revolutionary socialist. It should mean the animal movement joins the broader radical left. it should mean that the animal movement becomes the leading force for social revolution in the world.

Capitalist apologists observe that the left is as indifferent to animal suffering as is the right. That is somehow supposed to militate for capitalism? Capitalism is the most evil force ever unleashed by humans. It institutionalizes the basest of human behaviors and instincts, and suppresses the essence of all that is admirable in our species.

The future of humanity, if there is to be one, must be a socialist future. Not because socialism is a more moral system than is capitalism (which it is), but because capitalism will eventually destroy the environment, extinguishing humans, animals, oceans, rivers, rainforests, and the very air we all breathe.

Advocates for animals must join in broad coalitions with advocates for social and economic justice in working toward social revolution.

We must end the economic and legal systems which fuel and protect the Animal Holocaust.

It may come about by violent revolution or through political action. But the Animal Holocaust will never end through private action or recruiting vegans and activists. Our current course of action is ineffective, counter-productive, and doomed to failure.

Socialism is the only hope for animals, short of human extinction

The status quo is the enemy. Change and chaos would be far more helpful to animals than allowing the system to continue the genocide unchallenged.

revolution

The animal movement should cast the dice for vigilantism and revolution.

IT IS THE ONLY CHANCE THE ANIMALS HAVE.

 

 

 

Author’s Notes:

This article was published here a couple of days ago under the title We Must Step Outside Our Species. Because of a WordPress glitch it was not able to be shared properly.

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!

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. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

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.

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow us to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Animal Rights Advocates are Almost a Separate Species

  1. I know how homo sapiens felt about the Neanderthals. Vegans have evolve, while the rest of the humans are living in the stone age. I am vegan, I am not human. What humans do to animals makes me too ashamed to be a part of the human race any longer.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. CHALLENGE for the ARMORY REVOLUTION
    Roland, I find it interesting what you try to unleash. But I don’t believe in socialism, I don’t want socialism, and I am also not an atheist – although I would not call myself a ‘believer’ belonging to a particular creed, I would call myself a spiritual aspirant.

    Well, I have for you and your ARMORY REVOLUTION a CHALLENGE:

    This is a list with all cosmetic companies which are experimenting on animals:
    Aussie Hair; Aveda; Avon; Benefit; Bobbi Brown; Bourjois; Bumble and Bumble; Chanel; Clarins; Clinique; Crest; Dior; Dove; Elisabeth Arden; Essie; Estee Lauder; Garnier; Glam Glow; Gilette; Givenchy; Head and Shoulders; Jo Malone; La Roche Posoy; Lancome; L’Occitaine; MAC; Marc Jacobs; Maybelline; Max Factor; Neutrogena; Olay; Revlon; Rimmel; Sally Hansen; Shiseido; Shu Uemura; Simple; Tom Ford; Vichy; Wella; YSL.
    There are many photographs of the tortures animals undergo in the research laboratories of these companies. .

    The CHALLENGE is this: make the public/customers boycott the products of these companies, make them go bust, or change their policy in a ‘cruelty free policy’ – no testing on animals. Also no testing in China, where some companies continue to execute their miserable experiments but write on their labels that they do not experiment according to European laws, like Estee lauder does. So no loophole.

    Time frame: 6 months.

    You reach tow goals: you fight multinational companies, the epitome of capitalism, and you diminish the suffering of animals.

    What do you say? Do you accept the challenge?
    I am willing to help, give me a clear task which is in my possibility to perform, and I’ll do it.

    Like

    • A worthwhile goal, but an unrealistic one unless vigilantism is employed. The problem is that such a course of action is directed at a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Like almost all animal exploitation, abuse, and cruelty, animal testing is possible because of capitalism. The ownership of animals under every legal system is permitted, and the use of animals for people’s convenience or profit is protected by governments enforcing those laws. The idea that people are superior to all other life is a tenet of every major religion, and it reinforces the propaganda that animals are here for humans to use as they wish.

      Animals in testing laboratories constitute a small fraction of animals murdered by capitalism. The slaughter industries are far more destructive of live, by several orders of magnitude. But the tactics to seriously impact both animal agriculture and animal testing would be the same. Actually attacking the owners of the enterprises involved. The grunts that do the killing are easily replaced from an exploited and impoverished workforce. But the owners are those responsible for the torture and killing. As we grow as a more radical movement, I would encourage and support vigilante action against them. As we are not yet large enough to be able to afford the loss of troops at this point, it is a future strategy.

      Like

      • Thank you for the prompt reply.
        I am not interested in theoreticians, neither Trotskists, Leninists, Stalinists, Pol Pot-ists, a.s.o. When you are ready to take up this challenge, or this ‘worthwhile goal’ as you name it, let me know. Until then I say ‘Good Bye’.

        Like

    • How did you do this? I would like to resign too, but I am still in a human body, with human perceptions, thoughts, a.s.o. Can you disclose your technique? I mean it, it is not ironically meant.

      Like

    • I’m with you. I lost respect for humanity a long time ago and have seen no reason whatsoever to feel differently today. Except for a handful of rare people.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. The sentiment I have toward non-human earthlings is predicated on the value I place on humans, which is different from the value I place on other earthlings (yes, this statement seems to ring of confusion and tautology). Because I place greater value on human life doesn’t mean I sanction unnecessary cruelty or harm or death upon non-human earthlings. I would like to see our relationship with all life differently, but this would include embracing an economy predicated on necessity rather than trivial possession; it would mean the attrition and stabilization of our human population; it would involve habitat preservation; and would further include leaving other lifeforms alone, unless one (or more) happens to be a threat to our survival. The animal advocacy promulgated on this website is dominionistic, in spite of the benevolence it is framed in.

    Leave the animals alone. Stop breeding them and keeping them in your houses so you can feel good about your charity toward them while you plot the death of humans who aren’t as “superior” as you.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Reply to Jerry: there is no fundamental difference between human animals and animal animals. When we harm an animal, we harm ourselves. This is not obvious because of our collective programming. But it is the fundamental law of life.

      Like

      • Donca, what is this “fundamental law of life” you refer to? How did you arrive to this?

        You may employ the word “fundamental” to describe our affinity with all life, but it is unlikely you will ever have a conversation online about “What is life?” with your preferred pet. (I take this back. Given what is occurring with molecular biological technologies–breeding of bacterial robots, etc.–others of your elk may be able to dispense with all human connection, entirely, and, instead, fraternize with preferred pets.)

        Like

  4. Let us bring some sanity to this world and end the senseless, blood thirsty horrors that people put onto whales, porpoises, dolphins and other marine and land animals. There is no place any longer in an educated modern era for such abject brutality and savagery! Any government with the remotest responsibility could in good faith endorse such horrors as a culture.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. I have been an animal rescuer, transporter, foster, companion, etc. for many years. The abuse, cruelty, torture, and brutal killing of these beautiful, loving creatures have caused physical, emotional, & mental pain. To the point of losing hope for the human species, and wishing that Mother Nature would just eradicate such a dangerous, parasitic, wasteful species which is already hell-bent on eradicating THEMSELVES along with every other species on earth…
    I love & cherish all other animals, but humans, eh, not so much. I thought that was pretty much how ‘all’ animal lovers felt, in general.
    I loved the statement – “Animal Rights advocates believe each sentient life is as valuable as any other sentient life. Species is of no consequence.” – and said ‘Hey, that’s *ME*!’.
    Then I read, “Such a position is at odds with most of humanity, all the world’s governments and legal systems, and every major religion. It makes us the allies of life and the enemies of most people.” Yes, I agree… uh… wait – ‘enemies of *most* people’? Well, it sure FEELS like ‘most’ people some days, but surely ‘most’ people love animals, don’t they?? Maybe they aren’t as vocal, or as demonstrative, or supportive, or… oh COME ON, *SURELY* ‘MOST’ people LOVE animals… don’t they?!?
    We just need to point out the ‘obvious’ to those that don’t realize it. Appeal to their ‘humane, caring natures’, right?
    “The difference between Animal Rights activists and the overwhelming majority of humans is so profound that it is almost akin to being members of separate species. Only from that perspective can we see the horrors that humans engage in with alacrity and indifference.” A-Ha!! Now I *KNOW* something isn’t quite right here. Why, *all* of my Animal Rescue friends friends agree with me on how horrible ‘some’ humans are, and we work hard at ‘educating’ & ‘appealing’ to them! It just doesn’t seem to help ‘some’ people, ‘some’ times…
    “Animal Rights can never be achieved through gradualism or appealing to human ethics and senses of morality and justice.” But, but… we just have to work HARDER…? Beat our heads against ‘the wall’ harder… longer… louder…

    Wow. I never considered myself a ‘radical’ to this degree. But I must admit, it sure sounds like I’ve been ‘in the closet’, for a long while.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. Yes, very much like distinctly different species: Homo sapiens and Homo vastens. And the corollary to that distinction is that members of the former should feel no sorrow or guilt when anything bad happens to members of the latter. In fact, one should rejoice in that there are now fewer fully-functional vermin running around to do mischief. Likewise, animal rights advocates should feel no obligation to honor contractual or legal obligations, treat decently, or prevent injury (financial, mental or physical) to those who either actively mistreat non-human animals or those who appear indifferent to the injustice of such mistreatment. Those who don’t tender mercy to their underlings, don’t deserve to receive any. And that includes socialists. You’d be surprised by how easier an less complicated life becomes when one can dismiss around 90% of the human population as unworthy of sympathy. All the hand-wringing about poor, disadvantaged people around the globe, that is the usual stock-and-trade of the liberal media, – simply out the window!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I would not go so far as to consider those whom we oppose to be unworthy of sympathy. I would hope that our educational and recruitment efforts would continue to impact the dynamic of those who oppose us. Most every vegan was at one point a carnist. We should never forget from whence we came and that others are capable of making the journey as well.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oh Roland, please don’t go all soft and squishy on us! Humanity can, for the sake of clarity and efficiency of action, be logically divided into the Obermenschen who are intellectually and emotionally developed enough to take animal rights seriously and to extend a compassionate, helping hand to animals and to like-minded comrades and the Untermenschen who mostly just deserve a helping hand into the promised land by the most expeditious route feasible. Sympathy for the enemy does not play-out well in a war. And this struggle for justice that we all subscribe to can only be viewed as a war, a fundamental clash between the forces of good and evil. Untermenschen who see the light and come over to the other side should be welcomed as brothers. Those who don’t aren’t worthy of pity. Just like the Bolsheviks would never have come to power if they had been lead by Oprah and Dr. Phil, this struggle will not be advanced if AR advocates are all the equivalent of Margaret Thatcher’s “wets.”

        Liked by 1 person

    • People living in socialist countries, or who have experienced socialism, know that animals were/are not treated kinder than they are treated in capitalist countries. I would even say, animals are treated worse, out of may reasons. To couple the fight for animal rights to a political agenda concerning human affairs seems to me a serious strategic mistake.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One cannot use the measure past socialist societies as a yardstick for the future. Marx was dismissive of women’s rights, socialists in the early 20th Century were oblivious to the environment. socialists only recently embraced LGBT rights. Historically, the left is in the vanguard of human rights, and logic would dictate that future socialist societies would recognize Animal Rights long before any capitalist society would.

        The compelling argument for socialism for animal activists is that socialist societies murder and consume half the number of animals, per capita, as do capitalist societies. Half! Extrapolating those figures across the globe would mean saving 30 BILLION animals each and every year. Nothing the animal movement can envisage or hope for would save as many lives. Saving animals has nothing to do with socialist theory, it is a product of the implementation of socialist economics. For those of us whose priority is animals, socialism is an imperative. Any other considerations are of little importance. The imperative is so compelling that every person who cares about animals should be a revolutionary socialist. Every animal activist should be an enemy of capitalism. Every animal activist should join the broader left. Our role should be supporting revolution as much as we can, wherever we can. Revolution should be our goal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If in socialist countries people ate less animals it was because of money, nothing else. In Netherlands, a ‘capitalist’ country, people eat less and less animals. A change regarding the attitude towards animals comes with civilization, not with barbarism. Until now all socialist ideas are beautiful on paper and barbarian in practice. Uncouple the fight for animals from a political agenda for human society – this is the only way to achieve a change in the treatment of animals.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That the Netherlands consumes less meat than do other capitalist societies hardly militates for capitalism. If one uses a litmus test of animal consumption to gauge the ideal human society, aboriginal societies would win hands down! Socialist societies would follow after agrarian communities, with capitalism being the worst possible economic system for animals.

        The percentage of people who care about animals is small. Even fewer are those who do not exploit or consume them. Political and organizational efforts to change society are impossible with such a minuscule percentage of the public embracing Animal Rights. To bring about revolutionary change requires a broad coalition of opponents of capitalism. Were animal activists to understand what is at stake, the Animal Rights movement would be the leading proponent of violent revolution around the world.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ‘To bring about revolutionary change requires a broad coalition of opponents of capitalism’

        I say: requires a broad coalition of people who respect and love animals and want a change in the way humans treat them. Then I am on board. There are many such organizations, and I am sure many people not affiliated to an organization but who loath what is going on.

        The slogan of anti capitalism was: ‘Proletarians in the world, unite!’ – the new slogan should be:
        ‘Animal lovers in the world, unite!’

        Liked by 2 people

      • The number of people who value animals enough not to eat them is necessarily larger than the number of people who would risk their lives in armed rebellion to stop them being murdered. And that number is minuscule. We must grow our numbers through alliances and coalitions.

        Liked by 1 person

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