Herd Mentality in the Animal Movement

sheepThe behavior of any large group of intelligent people, when acting en mass, is indistinguishable from the behavior of a single stupid person.

The animal movement is comprised of well above average intellects, as are most progressive movements.

But the herd mentality of many in the animal movement is something to behold!

Aside from the obvious lack of political sophistication and strategic thinking, the overwhelming majority of animal activists seem incredibly easy to manipulate.

A perfect example is the ease by which Hillary keeps them in lock step. Her supporters post a few pics of Donald Trump’s sons with some poor creatures they killed, and animal activists ignore that she has done nothing for animals at all.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was the second most powerful person in the world.

What did she do for animals with all that power and influence? Absolutely nothing

She was certainly capable of extorting money from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, but unable to secure anything for the animals from those same governments. Why?

Could it have anything to do with the fact that animals are not a priority for Hillary Clinton? That they are not even on her radar when she is not campaigning? That personal aggrandizement, wealth, and power are her concerns?

Imagine what she could have done in her position for animals around the world. Imagine how she could have raised public awareness, Promoted animal campaigns, forged alliances with activists and governments, commanded national and worldwide attention to whaling, sealing, bullfighting, trophy hunting, poaching, the slaughter of endangered species for trinkets, trophies, and voodoo medicines.

Did she do any of that? No!

Did she use her influence to change the Obama administration’s horrid record on animals? No!

Did she seek to end wild horse roundups or ban live horse export for slaughter. Did she use her wight to stop Japanese whaling, Canada sealing, the dolphin murders in Tajii or the whale killers in the Faroes? No!

Did she set up interdiction of wildlife trafficking or poaching? Propose sanctions on countries which import ivory and rhino horn? No!

Did she ever do anything for animals during her entire tenure as Secretary of State? Did she ever make a single public statement condemning any atrocity against animals that occur daily around the world? No, she did not!

Now she is supporting our trade agreements which cause the deaths of hundreds of millions of animal each year.

And we are supposed to be impressed because she got some meaningless score while pandering for animal people’s votes a decade ago? That she has a page on her website which spouts meaningless verbiage about her concerns for animals? That she strokes a few animal activists in private meetings?

What we must remember is that she is again running for office and is again pandering to animal people for their votes.

Hillary is one of the animals’ biggest enemies. And nothing she has ever done proves otherwise.

Animal activists largely seem not to know or not to care.

One can observe animal activists engage in knee-jerk reaction to new ideas and analyses by taking a look at animal groups on Facebook. Comments seem directed at graphics and pictures rather than at the articles that are posted. Once someone has commented, the herd instinct steps in and people parrot each other, regardless of whether they know anything at all about the subject of the post

It would be funny if not so terribly sad.

 

 

Amory 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!

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 is to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Herd Mentality in the Animal Movement

  1. Trump flip flops routinely. Why on earth would you think he is going to honor anything he has promised? Just because Trump says he will end the current trade agreements doesn’t mean he will, nor does it mean that he won’t put in an even worse trade agreement to harm the animals. In fact, what has he ever said that would suggest he cares one iota about animals or animal welfare? The fact that he has suggested he will put one of his trophy hunting sons in charge of wildlife policy should be an indicator that he could care less about animals.
    I’m not defending Hilary in my comments about Trump, but to think he will be any better because he “says” he will abort current trade agreements is incredibly myopic. It’s time Americans wake up & stop supporting the two party system. Maybe you might think your vote won’t count for anything voting third party, but ethically, it will count more than supporting either of the renowned liar, liar pants on fire candidates.

    Like

    • Trump has consistently opposed out trade agreements. Opposition to them has been a mainstay of his campaign. He has pledged to abrogate them since he entered the race. Unlike Hillary, who has actually flip-flopped on trade, Trump has been adamantly against all of them, including the TPP.
      The animal movement has never had the possibility of accomplishing so much as it has with prospect of a Trump presidency.

      Most animal activists who criticize Trump point to Trump’s serial killer sons who hunt big game and post horrific pics of themselves with poor creatures they have murdered for fun. And while Trump himself does not hunt, like Bernie Sanders, he condones and supports hunting.

      Trump also owned a steak company and buys his wife furs.

      At first glance, Trump seems an unlikely ally for animal activists, and an even more unlikely savior of animals.

      Most animal activists are shocked when I explain that Trump will save more animals each year than has the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years.

      A generous estimate of the average number of animals saved by the animal movement is about one million per year, primarily cats and dogs. That equals 50 million over the last 50 years.

      (A disheartening aside, that is about the number of animals that will be murdered in slaughterhouses during the next work shift.)

      And it is about half the number that President Trump will save each year by abrogating our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, Colombia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Peru, etc.

      Trade agreements kill animals. Hundreds of millions of animals every year die specifically because of our trade agreements, which make it cheaper and more profitable to produce animal corpses. Using Third World labor, US companies ship animals overseas to be tortured, slaughtered, butchered, and returned to the US for sale in American stores and restaurants. Trade agreements require that nations forbid Country of Origin labeling to prevent consumer boycotts. The Obama administration has already enacted such a ban on labeling. Trade agreements override US labor, environmental, and anti-cruelty laws. They make it impossible to ban live export for slaughter of for animal sacrifice in the Middle East, dooming hundreds of thousands of sheep, lambs, goats, and calves to imprisonment in ships’ holds for weeks before before cruelly murdered by religious zealots.

      Trump opposes trade agreements. Hillary Clinton supports them.

      And Trump has promised to repudiate and abrogate every trade agreement to which the US is a party.

      If Trump does what he has promised, it will mean tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of animals saved every year.

      It will be the most sweeping blow for animals in history.

      And it will be accomplished by someone who does not really care about animals.

      Electing Trump should be the primary goal of every American animal activist. It is more important than anything the animal movement has ever done.

      If animals are you priority, you have no choice but to vote for Donald Trump. But if you are like most people, you have priorities that are more important to you than the animals.

      Most animal activists are politically progressive, and many are swept up in the euphoria of the prospect of electing the first woman as president. For those with such an agenda, the fact that Hillary Clinton is perhaps one of the greatest enemies that animals have is unimportant. Clinton’s support of trade agreements causes the suffering and deaths of hundreds of millions of animals each year, yet she manages to pay lip service to animal welfare concerns on her website and thereby silences many activists who do not take the time to carefully look at the policies or her record.

      The revolving door between industry and government is common to both Republican and Democratic administration. Bankers are appointed to Treasury, Big Oil lobbyists go to Energy and Transportation, Big Ag alums and executives get appointed to Interior and Agriculture, Big Pharma controls the FDA and the National Institutes of Health, the military industrial complex gets Defense and Homeland Security. All greased by political bribes and legally sanctioned corruption.

      Usually, the appointment of Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior occur well beneath the radar, and are neither challenged nor closely examined by the media.

      But the policies of those Secretaries affects millions of animals. Agriculture is responsible for all animal agriculture and production in the country. All feedlots, factory farms, slaughterhouses, packing plants, and the rules and regulations that govern them and the inspectors and inspections which enforce those rules and regs, and Wildlife Services, which kills millions of inconvenient wildlife for the cattle industry..

      Interior controls the Bureau of Land Management which conducts the cruel, ongoing wild horse roundups.

      Both Departments are invariably headed and staffed by industry alums,lobbyists, and politicians wholly owned by Big Ag.

      But this election cycle, if Trump becomes President Trump, his animal murdering sons may be appointed to positions in the Trump administration. Both Eric and Donald Trump, Jr, have expressed interest in being involved in public land policy and land use.

      If there were to be appointed to anything involving Interior or Agriculture, the animal movement should rejoice.

      Never in American history has animal welfare, animal protection, or animal rights ever been on the national stage. Eric and Donald, Jr, would catapult animal issues to the forefront of national attention and debate.

      Neither could possibly be any worse than all the mainstream animal murderers who have held those positions. But their track records as trophy hunters would make any appointment among the most controversial of Trump’s presidency, and would not only educate the public and grow the movement, it would turn animal issues into political capital and liabilities in future elections.

      The litmus tests I employ for every election is which candidate will do the most for animals or which will cause animals the least suffering. Even Bernie supported hunting and dairy farms, so even the best candidate in the race was greatly flawed. Of Trump and Hillary, Trump has said he will repudiate our trade agreements. Were he to do so, HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of animals would not be slaughtered each year. Think of that number! Every year Trump would save easily twice the number of animals as has been saved by the entire worldwide animal movement over the past 50 years.

      Voting for Trump is only helpful in those states where he might be able to defeat Hillary, so called “battleground” or purple states. Purple states include or may include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico. North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

      But for Sanders voters in red sates, those carried by McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012. there is nothing to be gained by voting for Trump, as he will carry those states against Hillary with or without Sanders voters. Same with deep blue states like California and New York. Hillary will comfortably carry such states, so a vote against her is wasted. Might as well help Jill Stein.

      Sanders supporters in deep red or blue states have the opportunity to make a profound difference to the American political landscape by voting for Jill Stein of the Green party. While the likelihood is minimal that such votes would do anything to affect the outcome of races in those states, the cumulative effect of a wave of Green party votes could operate to help the party reach the threshold of 5% of the vote to qualify the party for federal funds.

      If animals are your priority, join me in electing Donald Trump. And in defeating the animals’ worst nightmare, Hillary Clinton.

      Like

  2. Activists who believe Hillary’s website promises to help animals don’t seem to know that much about animal rights or Hillary Clinton.

    On her campaign website, Hillary promises to promote animal welfare, and the list includes protecting wildlife in the U.S., combatting international wildlife trafficking, protecting pets, protecting farm animals, and protecting horses.

    In the interests of space, just looking at the last two “protections” raises questions.

    Hillary will help horses by “cracking down” on the practice of horse soring. This is an abuse of Tennessee walking horses which involves burning their legs or hooves with caustic agents, such as mustard oil, so the resulting pain will promote the exaggerated gait the trainers and owners want.

    This was the first big cause I heard about and worked on, writing letter after letter to Congress, making follow-up calls, and getting petitions signed. In 1970 the Horse Protection Act was passed, and that looked like a big victory. Wrong! It is now 2016—46 years later—and there is another bill waiting in Congress. It is called the PAST Act (Prevent All Soring Tactics). Thus in the intervening years since the Horse Protect Act, horses have continued to be tortured. The PAST Act has several competing bills which are weaker and will not completely curtail the abuses. And so far both bills are awaiting further action. In the meantime, Hillary promises to “crack down.”

    Hillary also promises to help farm animals “by encouraging farms to raise animals humanely.”

    Currently there are no federal laws governing conditions in which farm animals are raised and how they must be treated. Most farm animals are excluded from all the anti-cruelty laws which cover other domestic animals. And the “standard agricultural practices” which are tolerated are inherently cruel, such as castrations, dehorning, and tail docking without anesthesia. There are no laws requiring sick or injured animals to receive veterinary care. Pigs can be kept in crates too small for them to roll over, and veal calves are also confined in tiny spaces and refused proper nutrition so that they will be anemic and their meat will be pale. Chickens have the tips of their beaks burned off without any pain relief. The birds raised for food have been deliberately bred to grow too big and too fast and are thus subject to cardiopulmonary problems (difficulty breathing and heart attacks). As for “euthanasia,” that may consist of throwing sick and injured baby pigs onto concrete floors until they’re mortally injured, throwing animals on a “dead pile” to die, or, in the case of baby male chicks, allowing them to suffocate in plastic garbage bags or tossing the still living birds in macerators.

    The name of the game for Big Ag is to increase the bottom line by squeezing the most out of the animals by any means necessary to get the biggest number to market in the fastest manner for the most money. The suffering undergone by the animals is not considered.

    Mercy For Animals, Compassion Over Killing, and PETA have done multiple undercover investigations of pig farms, dairy farms, and poultry/egg farms. They have documented every horror listed above, including restrained cows being hit in the face and body by crowbars or poked with pitchforks, sick and injured (downed) cows repeatedly kicked in the face and body to make them get up, pigs with pus-filled pressure sores and no care, and baby pigs with ruptured intestines from botched castrations. Sick chickens are seen crammed into tiny cages with injured beaks and sores covering bare skins. Dead and dying birds are shown littering the floor beneath the stacks of cages.

    So Hillary is going to help those doomed beings by “encouraging” the likes of Big Ag to treat them humanely. Really? Will President Clinton’s encouragement make pig farmers abandon gestation crates and shame dairy farmers into treating their cows better? Will egg and chicken producers throw out the battery cages and advertise their happy free-range birds? Will enough encouragement prompt producers to find forever loving homes for their baby chicks instead of grinding them up?

    The only way to stop the tortured lives of farm animals is the passage of comprehensive laws with the intent of strict enforcement and swift and severe punishment for abusers. To do that would require taking on one of the country’s biggest, wealthiest, and most powerful corporate entities—Big Ag—with its army of lobbyists and virtually bottomless ability to fund (or not fund) campaigns. That does not sound like a political battle Hillary Clinton would be interested in. It does not sound like something Big Ag’s minions in Congress would support. They care about their bottom lines too.

    So Hillary Clinton’s pledge to help animals by “cracking down” on bad behavior and “encouraging” the greedy and abusive to reform is difficult to take seriously.

    As for Hillary’s lost opportunities while Secretary of State, such as calling international attention to bullfighting, whaling, trophy hunting, etc., it is hard to know what might have happened if she had spoken out.

    Others have not been as reticent to be heard, but there were consequences. For example, in 2014 Caroline Kennedy, who had recently been appointed ambassador to Japan, noted on Twitter that she thought the Cove dolphin killing was cruel and inhumane. That evoked a swift and negative response from Japan. The Japanese were astonished that anyone would criticize its cultural traditions and called the tweet improper. They also called America hypocritical for wanting to save dolphins while killing millions of cows, pigs, and chickens. Lawmaker Masayhiso Sato suggested that Ambassador Kennedy was acting inappropriately in her official role by criticizing his country.

    Robert Dujarrie, the director of the Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies at Temple University of Japan said Kennedy’s tweet could cause problems between the U.S. and Japan. According to Dujarrie, “There are far more important questions between the U.S. and Japan. The key to dolphin business is getting Japan to oppose it. But will this help? Or on the contrary, will it start a nationalistic reaction against meddling by a [foreign] country.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/21/kennedy-dolphin-tweet/4700405

    The question is, How much would Hillary be willing to risk if speaking up for animals meant upsetting diplomatic relations or even causing a backlash that might lead to withheld favors or funds? What would she be willing to risk for animals who will give her nothing in return?

    These are questions Clinton supporters need to ask themselves. They may find multiple reasons to vote for her. But her professed concern for animals and promise to help them should not be one of them.

    Like

  3. hillary does not manipulate everyone. I despise both hillary and trump equally and I will not vote for either one. I think this is the time for animal rights supporters to make themselves heard. I think animal rights activists, not republican and not democrat. Whatever we think of ourselves, voting for either one the two parties this year is accepting defeat in the overall movement. No I will not vote for either one of the despicable candidates.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Your outrage is commendable, if not strategically directed. One of the major candidates will become president. We should use our votes to ensure it is the one who will cause the least harm to animals.
      Trump has promised to abrogate our trade agreements, which will save the lives of hundreds of millions of animals each year. With the stroke of a pen, Trump will save more animals than any person in history, and will accomplish more than has the entire animal movement in the last century.

      Like

      • I do not trust trump and his sons. His sons are on another hunting trip right in the middle of their fathers campaign. That to me shows the level of their arrogance and what will come if their father wins the election. They will change every law to give the hunters more room to kill.

        Like

      • Laws need to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Republicans will control the House, the Democrats will retake the Senate. Nothing of substance will pass no matter whom is elected president. Which ever party wins the White House will loose the midterm elections in 2018. There is little in life more certain than that. And if Hillary is president, the Democrats will be swept in 2018, which means that the Republicans will be able to do in 2020 what they did in 2010: control the House for a decade! Democrats won’t have a majority in Congress until 2030 at the earliest. THAT is the real price we will pay for electing Hillary.

        Like

  4. I agree that Hillary is, and was a non-starter regarding true animal rights/liberation. I am disgusted that we have to hold our noses while voting in this year’s presidential election, as it exists now anyway. But is your primary motive for promoting/voting for Trump because his policies( if you can discern them), and his possible selection of his animal-trophy hunting sons to his cabinet will cause such outrage that a revolution of ideas and actions might actually occur in this country?

    Like

    • Please know that my differences with Trump are profound. I disagree with him on almost everything.
      Trump is a capitalist. I am a socialist.
      Trump is a Christian. I am an atheist.
      Trump wants to build a border wall. I support open borders.
      Trump wants to ban Muslims. I support accepting refugees.
      Trump wants to increase the military. I want to dismantle the military.
      Trump supports the police. I want the police controlled by the federal government, or disbanded.

      My reasons for supporting Trump are twofold: His election will launch political revolution in the country. It will portend a true progressive Democrat challenges him in 2020. It will mean the Democrats sweep the 2018 midterms. It will mean that Democrats take back enough statehouses to control reapportionment in 2020. It will mean the Democrats will control the House until at least 2030.

      And Trump has promised to abrogate our trade agreements, which will save the lives of hundreds of millions of animals each year. With the stroke of a pen, Trump will save more animals than any person in history, and will accomplish more than has the entire animal movement in the last century.

      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