Vegan is Anti-Speciesist is Anti-Civ

Contrary to the predatory man-the-hunter myth, hominids have innate empathy and cooperativeness that manifests idiosyncratically in civilization. One such manifestation is veganism, whose central focus is the abstention from needless exploitation of animals. But, conventional anarcho-primitivist pigeonholing of veganism into a consumerist schema has distorted its authentic essence, oversimplifying, distorting, and denouncing it. {Ironically, in practice it is the trending ‘paleo’ primitivist ideologues who engage in more destructive consumerism than even consumerist vegans, and of whom there is a void of conventional primitivist confrontation.} Veganism’s supporting principle is liberation of all animals, with its opposite being human supremacy over all other animals, or speciesism. Innate empathy and cooperation, combined with drive for liberation of all, beckons shifting the nature of humanimal-nonhumanimal relationships from domination and domestication to deferential and symbiotic. Therein veganism fundamentally becomes an anti-speciesist
viewpoint concerned not only with bred ‘pet’ & ‘food’ animals and captive wildlife, but feral wildlife worldwide. This translates into vegan/anti-speciesist deeds like releasing imprisoned animals and protecting forests
from consumeristic exploitation of fauna habitat.

Civilization has proven itself to be an ecologically destructive force, leaving all animals and all biotic-abiotic communities damaged and doomed. The repeated, hard-to-accept lesson is that civilization is the cause of the problem, and cannot be the cure. Hopes for techno-saviors have been repeatedly dashed, often causing further harm with unintended consequences. This is the merging point of speciesism and civilization premises. They are conjoined twins, born together on the artifices of hierarchy and oppression, with maddening successions of human harms along civilization’s catastrophic trek. They will be intrinsically eternally unified until their death, whether through intentional dismantling, unintentional collapse, or a combination. The conjoined counter approach calls for actions such as destroying apparatuses of totalitarian control, undoing oppression, rewilding native habitats, and rewilding self.

A word must be said to those seeking to discover and reawaken origins, striving for a future primitive. The sect of primitivism focused on ‘hunter-gatherism’ (my term) is plagued with patriarchy. Here’s an exercise to visually demonstrate the point: In your mind google ‘caveman’. Compare those images to a google of ‘cavewoman’. Scientific studies, interpretations on early humans and evolutionary narratives, from which anprims extract information to depict the primitive lifeway, are profoundly value-laden. Origin narratives are created, not objectively described realities. Hunter-gatherism naturalizes patriarchy by projecting it into our species’ origins.
Alternative narratives countering civilization’s values, such as ‘vegan primitivism’, tend to be silenced, scorned and sternly denied before due consideration. These oppressive dynamics are countered by conscientiously seeking a broader ancestral life narrative, undermining the values behind patriarchy, and rejecting the rigidity of the evolutionary normative.

Sometimes wording means much. Foraging was the mainstay of most ancestral diets, and a common female specialist activity as sex roles increasingly diverged after the advent of hunting. Many woman never participated in methodical hunting. There were swaths of time with no human hunting or foraging animals at all. Humans mainly subsisted off foraged plants, etc., especially before the systematic use of controlled fire. Yet, the term ‘hunter-gatherer’ is the generally accepted norm connoting the early human foodway. The term ‘forager’ would more accurately reflect the lived egalitarian experience of the vast majority of early humans. Another exercise: Imagine you had been born into a world where all humans had a plant diet. Would you have an impulse to bring back hunter-gatherism, or would you put that in a category similar to other early ‘natural’ doings, like
cannibalism, or rape, or infanticide? Cherry-picking an animal-based diet from diverse past diets because you have been enculturated to prefer it, and regardless of environmental impact, is the mindset that led toward
devastating civilization to begin with.

Earth needs an intuitive yet smart approach from fighting yet giving humans today. Adapting anti-civ, anti-speciesist veganism in today’s degraded wild world calls for an adaptation in our bio-culture that protects remaining habitats, ends causes of civilization’s harms, and helps heal Earth. If a highlight of our species is our ability to adapt to our environment, may we select ways from our origins that enrich an ever-thriving wild future.
Read the title again. The logic works in reverse as well.
-Ria Del Montana

For more information/resources visit:
resistance-- talk-4-2017

"Never trust an ex-vegan" isnt just a slogan on a pin worn ironically by some fuckin douchebag in the bay area. Its the truth.

with your logic anyone could rape, murder, ITS, harming others without any reason above 'I want to', and then point the finger when they get called out, when someone stands up for your victims. Sorry for putting you through the pain or whatever of facing the impacts of your actions, but the pain you cause others can no longer go ignored simply so you can do what you want.

In fact here lies the structural break point difference between your type and mine. For me anarchy should have a structural hedonic enjoyment based framework. You obviously come from what's know as suffering focused ethics. I reject that. It's not to say that suffering does not have an important marginal place in my mind, but suffering focused ideology tends to correlate with anti-life structures of thought. The extreme forms are of course things like archaic Jainism and modern anti-natalist/efilism(David Benatar Inmendham ect). Obviously veganism is of a particular marginal position and not on the extreme but I do associate with the anti-instinct and vitality drives of those more extreme discourses. I myself am not actually anti-anti-natalist as I respect the internal consistency of those extreme views to a certain degree(see anekantavad on youtube who has some good videos on this)

I am more with dead Fred Nietzsche on this issue. Life in the physical sense is something to affirm. I'm more ambivalent then he is but on the whole life in the physical sense is something l affirm. That means accepting all the horrible things to and commensalizing oneself to physical suffering without outright celebrating it obviously. If one finds beauty in the biosphere one must also realize the immense amount of everyday suffering and tragedy that goes on of which humans don't amount to a hill a' beans.

There is still a place for vegan values in my view a strong marginal practice, it could be part of the dietary seasons. Certainly industrial death machines need to go for obvious reasons. I don't think this means the end of human animal consumption though which is part of a greater continuum of animal on animal consumption. A full scale biocentric eithics is likely improbable.

while trying to get my joy from actions that cause joy, not off the harm of others, especially when there is an easy choice.

humans have joy of thriving within communities of life, especially in ways that add to the thriving nature of nature. Not all animals consume animals. Many humans haven't and don't need to. To be true to your 'animals eat animals' mindset, let's drop our weaponry and re-take our place as prey to be eaten.

I wonder if you see yourself as anthropocentric, as speciesist.

But off the harm of others is an endogenous element of the physical world. You can develop some lateral values and ethics to curb it but you cannot stop these events outside of the anti-natalist efilist option. The thriving of nature includes a commensalized amount of unavoidable sentient suffering(which includes plants btw). In terms of humans transcending the food chain via their intelligence, why not, the nurture of nature was already pregnant with that possibility. The Cetaceans are already doing it relative to their world to a certain degree. I think humans should be on the side of what the instincts impel as Nietzsche argues.

I don't think anthropocentric, if you are biocentric then you should affirm what the physical world is to an inherent degree and the physical world is partly driven by predation and other things life deniers don't care for. Suffering focused ideology distracts from having an integrated relationship with various ecology and the physical world as a whole. Am I a speciesist, that depends on your definition. I personally don't like the word or real care for the guy who came up with it. I think that same species correspondence is a fixture of nature and nurture and humans are not really doing anything all that different. I certainly don't think humans are transcendentally better then their non human counterparts.

All in all I don't dislike veganism and think it has a place, just not a pan structuring place as far as scaleable ethics goes.

Well when your "eating habits" include the subjugation of others and the consumption of their bodies, backed by a system that justifies it culturally, there is plenty of dialogue to be had. But if your response resembles the response of fascists who want to dominate other groups of people for the sake of convenience, perhaps violence is the only response?

Your thoughts Flower Bomb & Ria?

I <3 Hunting Accidents.

Hunting non-human animals is just as necessary as sharp-shooting humans from a tree top. Plenty of food and shelter around that doesn't involve flesh and secretions.

The humans quickly start shooting back tho! Then you're a sitting duck in a tree! Belated trigger warning for that analogy ...

I will second this, being a hateful pacifist.

How do you reply to the concept that eating and dominating others is just the natural way of life?

reply with laughter as they shiver without clothing and freeze without fire and utter nonsensical noises through mouths full of decay… nature is a delusion.

I love the image of 'circle of life' oxymorons relinquishing their civilized 'advances' that artificially bumped them up to the world's apex predator, to truly align their alleged life philosophy with their lifeway, no clothes, no fire, retake their ecosystem function as a prey species to feed their flesh to wild animals and plants. My only exception with your post rfa is that I see civilization as the delusion, a delusion most worthy of laughter and decomposition.

hear, hear

nature, civilization, delusion, same.

and we laugh.

My beef with vegans says more about me than them...

"...It’s not a good look, I realise, to appear annoyed with groups of people living their lives in the way they choose without harming others – and, in the case of vegans, taking the not-harming-others to considerable lengths. Nevertheless I’m going to stick my neck out (also not a good look) because it’s true. I’m not asking you other meat-eaters to do the same. You never have to seem annoyed, just to privately ask yourselves whether you find all these vegans slightly annoying.

If you do, then the obvious next question is why. Well, there are lots of reasons: for example, some vegans seem so radical and preachy and angry. Though actually, again being honest, I don’t really mind that. I quite like it. It makes it easy to discount them as weird, which was my view about veganism in general before I started finding the number of vegans annoying.

I think what I find annoying, deep down – and, again, some meat-eaters, you don’t have to own up to this, but it might interest you to discover whether you feel it – is the very fact that I can’t discount vegans any more. The thing that’s annoying about there suddenly being lots of them is the nagging suspicion that they might be right. When there were hardly any vegans, I hardly ever had to think about that.

After all, it’s not as if eating meat is an incontrovertibly lovely thing to do. I mean, it’s lovely to eat, it’s delicious, but I’m talking about actually killing an animal: you know, an organism that can feel stuff, and likes some things and doesn’t like other things, that can pretty clearly experience fear – either that or it can act, which would be an even greater sign of sentience. It doesn’t necessarily feel particularly great to put an end to that creature’s life, I imagine. So, speaking personally, I’m thrilled it all gets handled by other people, because I don’t reckon that if I’d just, say, strangled a goat I’d be feeling brilliant about myself....

I think after writing THIS -"My beef with vegans says more about me than them." you're supposed to say - "Pun not intended" or "Pun intended," unless it was so corny a pun that it was not worth even mentioning. Otherwise, good comment, NOW FIND A GOAT AND STRANGLE IT FOR CHRISSAKES AND LOSE THE APOLOGETIC GUILT!

In the podcast with Ria his reasoning stooped to the level of this liberal Guadian writer. It’s like he never really thought it through, just followed the carnist sheeple. This might be his hugest self-awareness blindspot, out of line with anything anarchist.

if all you got was "SLAVE TO PEER PRESSURE" out of aragorn talking about eating being a social thing, about how personal/individual choices are just that, and that his veganism stopped when he stopped relating to vegans, or when they stopped being who he wanted to share culture with, then you're perhaps intentionally blind. maybe even IDEOLOGICAL.
but obvsiously it serves aragorn right because fuck him for sharing personal details abotu his life to a bunch of spectating vampires.

"a social thing, about how personal/individual choices are just that, and that his veganism (non-Nazism) stopped when he stopped relating to vegans (non-Nazis), or when they stopped being who he wanted to share culture with."

everything is everything.
good to know.
hey everyone, glenn beck comments on anarchist news!

To put it all in perspective, on top of breeding animals into existence to be more compliant and ‘beefy’, if we ate ourselves at the same rate that we eat these human created beings, we’d drive ourselves into extinction in 17 days.

How can any self proclaimed anarchist not see the contradiction in exploiting these innocent animals we brought into being?

Now THAT is a powerful statistic I will remember!

2 wrongs don't make a right

'nobody's innocent' is the lamest of lame excuses. SirEinzige, you really can't come up with a lousy better than that?

for being sacrificed to feeds humans, and their pets. That's why. And more importantly because it is an extension of the exploitation of humans by humans, just a more terrible, brutal kind of exploitation. But you know what? Those exploitative mass industries are not unattackable, unreachable godly entities. You may refuse to buy and eat their shit, and I support that, actively, and respecting that is the least that any anarchist can do; but it's not going to change shit in the entire mass production chains.

But all the devices and infrastructure allowing for this meat to be mass produced and brought to your nearest supermarket are concrete and they exist on the surface of this planet. Like it's late 2018 and even after all the mainstream talk on veganism, there are still ads promoting meat-loving in my town, featuring hipster beardos who look really cool with their grilled steaks. What are you doing about it?


Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.