Thought of the Day. Trump and Animal Welfare. November 18, 2016

I recently asked readers to weigh in on whether or not to keep publishing our Thought of the Day. Of those voting, keeping the feature won handily.

Instead of merely posting status updates on Facebook, I am now posting each apothegm, thought, observation, and witticism, here, as a Thought Of The Day.
Status updates on Facebook disappear into the ether and cannot be relocated by readers.
Before you leave, please take a moment to follow this blog by clicking on Follow in the upper right sidebar.
Readers are welcome to contribute thoughts, apothegms, observations, and witticisms. Attribution will be given for any we publish. Send an email to with the subject Submission

Today’s Thought:

While I urged animal activists to vote for Trump in swing states, I never suggested that Trump was in favor of animal welfare. Quite the opposite. I observed that he does not care about animals, and that the benefit to animals of a Trump presidency would be unintentional.

However, that unintentional benefit would exceed any intentional efforts by Hillary Clinton.



Armory 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 us to advertise!


5 thoughts on “Thought of the Day. Trump and Animal Welfare. November 18, 2016

  1. And what do you think of the outlook for wild animals should Forrest Lucas or Sarah Palin be appointed Secretary of the Interior? The former can only be described as malignantly hostile to animal rights and the latter is, to be charitable, simply the equivalent of a dim-witted 11 year old. Do threatened and endangered animals count for more, on a one to one basis, than domesticated species? Or is it a matter of simple math: being willing to sacrifice 20,000 African lions if we can save 40 million cattle? I ask this question sincerely, not rhetorically, because I’m personally unsure. Domesticated animals, despite all the horrors they suffer, are at least not in danger of disappearing as entire species. Much of the world’s wild megafauna is. I’ve framed this question before from a human context: are the lives of 5,000 Amazon Indians in danger, as a tribe, of disappearing from the face of the Earth more or less important than, say, the lives of 5 million Floridians? To which cohort are we more morally obligated?


    • I believe all lives are equally valuable. As a Utilitarian I believe we are obligated to do the greatest good for the greatest number or to alleviate the greatest suffering of the greatest number. To hold otherwise is to embrace speciesism, the favoritism of a particular species over others.


    • Geoff, if you are unsure, it is because you pose the difference between domestic and wild animals in terms of a hypothetical question of moral philosophy: would you save 40,000 cows or 20,000 lions? In the real world, humans are increasing the population of domesticates while decreasing the population of wild animals. Without human intervention, the population of domesticates would decrease, perhaps to zero, while the population of wild animals would, if it is not too late for them, increase.
      Don’t be concerned if Trump supporters like Roland call you names like “speciesist.” Be more concerned about what can be done to alleviate the mass extinction already underway.


  2. Yes, you said, to vote for Trump in swing states, because of his promise to, not allow the TPP and other trade agreements, to pass through Congress and become law. This could save 40 million lives of animals a year. Hillary would have endorsed TPP and more trade agreements.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.