BITING BACK! A Radical Response to Non-Vegan Anarchists

  • Posted on: 5 August 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

While there are certainly a number of radicals who recognize the oppression of non-human animals and are fighting against it, we continue to see non-human animals offered as food items at many radical potlucks, bookfairs, and other anarchist gatherings. We believe this is a hierarchical form of oppression worthy of a much needed anarchist critique.

This short essay will attempt to address some of the most common anarchist objections to veganism. We aim to inspire a praxis of insurrectionary anarchy and eco-defense by asserting a position against speciesism and the objectification of non-human animals.

Definitions:

Insurrectionary anarchy: Insurrectionary anarchy is a way of conceptualizing anarchism within our present moment. Rather than waiting around for a revolutionary moment in the future, the insurrectionary anarchist recognizes that the revolutionary fight is happening here and now. There will be no grandiose revolution to wait around for. Insurrectionary anarchism is focused on action. We want to create a better world in our present moment while attacking what holds us back from realizing that world. We aim to put an end to the state, capitalism, and all internal and external power structures which maintain this society.

Anthropocentrism: The moralist belief that human beings are the most significant entity on earth.

Speciesism: Speciesism, like many other isms, is based on a line of thinking which views certain unchosen traits as inherently superior over others. Racists think they are superior because of their race, sexists think they are superior because of their sex, speciesists think they are superior because of their species. Speciesism arises out of an anthropocentric view of the world in which an individual holds the belief that the human is the most important animal and therefore has the right to subjugate other animals based on species.

Veganism: The avoidance, as much as possible, of cruelty to and consumption of non-human animals and products derived from them for food, clothing, and entertainment. Vegans view all animals (human and non-human alike) as beings with their own desires and potential for freedom.

Radical veganism is a logical extension of anarchist thought which recognizes the situations faced by all beings under attack by oppression, not only the human. Veganism in this respect proposes the constant reflection and deconstruction of personal positions, behaviors, and actions in the forever changing relationships between individuals, the world around us, and the dominating systems imposed onto us.

Here are 4 common objections to veganism presented by anarchists.

1. Imposing veganism is a colonial practice because killing and eating meat is an essential aspect of many indigenous communities. i.e. “Killing and eating animals is not the problem, a colonized relationship to killing and eating animals is the problem.”

This is a common position we have seen many anarchists take. Interestingly enough, we find it is most often evoked as a response by white anarchists assuming a position as an “ally” to indigenous people. Many anarchists believe they are somehow speaking on behalf of indigenous people or seeking to further the traditions of indigenous people. This simplistic use of identity politics is nothing new. One need not look far to realize that there are a great number of indigenous people who are vegan today as well as a number of indigenous people whose customs never centered on consuming animals. There is no monolithic indigenous culture to evoke and therefore the gesture is meaningless. There are only multitudes of indigenous people with their own beliefs and customs. Attempting to justify hunting and/or non-human animal consumption by romanticizing Indigenous people only plays a role in homogenizing the experiences of all indigenous peoples.

2. I oppose factory farming but there is nothing wrong with killing animals outside of capitalism. i.e. “Killing and eating animals is not the problem, killing and eating animals under capitalism is the problem.”

This objection to veganism assumes that under capitalism factory farming is the only harmful experience attributed to non-human animals. While yes, slaughterhouses look better up in flames, at the core of speciesism is a hierarchical relationship between human and non-human animals (which is reflected in their everyday use for entertainment, pharmaceutical testing, and fashion trends involving their skin and fur) which justifies their oppression beyond just capitalism. Since the social relationship to non-human animals has been heavily shaped by capitalism, they are viewed as manufactured commodities rather than living beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering. While the elimination of capitalism and factory farming will end the institutionalized manifestations of speciesism, only an elimination of human supremacy on a personal level will create new relationships with non-human animals-relationships based on respect for their right to bodily autonomy and freedom from human domination.

3. Veganism is only a consumer activity and not inherently anti-capitalist. Boycotts don’t change anything. i.e. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism.”

All too often this objection comes from a perspective that mistakenly assumes liberal veganism represents veganism as a whole. On an organized level, radical vegan groups and cells like the ALF, Animal Liberation Brigade, Animal Rights Milita etc. have destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in property and terrorized the state into creating the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. On an individual level, veganism is an attack on the day to day speciesist power structure, a power structure invisibilized by social normalcy.

Anyone who has attended enough anarchist gatherings that excluded vegan food knows how quickly discussions/arguments over speciesism and non-human animal oppression disrupts the atmospheric peace surrounding the consumption of animal flesh and secretions. While it seems tempting to dismiss veganism as merely a consumer activity, veganism challenges the oppressive hierarchy (speciesism) in radical spaces by acting as a wrench in the gears of speciesist conformity. By existing as such, dialog is created which brings the issue of non-human animal oppression to the surface and calls for an extended examination of internalized oppressive tendencies and behavior.

Speciesism is normalized through individual participation in a broader social program that objectifies non-human animals and places them below humans as commodities to consume. Taking part in this process of objectification normalizes the existence of oppressive thinking and ideology in anarchist spaces. It is an incomplete observation to say veganism is only concerned with food; it opens new avenues of thinking in terms of our relationship to non-human animals, while challenging a socially constructed hierarchy of human supremacy that normalizes our consumption of them.

4. I’m not contributing to animal oppression because I only steal or dumpster animal products.

While this might satisfy some liberal vegans, it still does not get at what the core of the issue with consuming animals is. While only stealing or dumpstering animal products might mean you are not contributing monetarily to animal oppression, it still validates the notion of human supremacy by normalizing the social activity of consuming non-human animals. By stating “its ok if it’s not bought and otherwise would be wasted” people who dumspter animal products reduce veganism to a boycott strategy relate to their surroundings. Simply put, dumpstering animal products undermines the necessity for developing personal non-hierarchical relationships with non-human animals which destroy their assigned commodity status.

Conclusion
Veganism is not merely a dietary choice, but a challenge to the dominant anthropocentric narrative. It is not about purchasing different products but cultivating new relationships with non-human animals which are not based on hierarchies and oppression. While there are still anarchists who feel waiting for the collapse of capitalism and supporting the ALF is a sufficient enough approach to anti-speciesism, many of us recognize the social and dietary framework which enables speciesism and the need for its total destruction.

Anarchists are quick to recognize that racism, sexism, and homophobia will not simply go away upon the collapse of capitalism and they must be fought here and now. These same anarchists, however, are often unwilling to apply this logic to speciesism. If we want total freedom, we must cultivate new relationships in our everyday lives. This means fighting oppression on every line, including the line of species. Refusing to do so is not coherent with anarchist and autonomist practices.

We are not asking for bigger cages but the destruction of all cages along with the ways of thinking that create them. Towards anarchy through individual and collective negation of this society and all its internalized roles, in solidarity with the wild against the prison world of human supremacy: vegan anarchy means attack everywhere!

category: 

Comments

These are some extremely weak arguments against some really strong points. People who are so disconnected from the natural world that they think eating other animals is wrong (vegans) are worrisome, and I was one for a long time. There is so much irony here. Put me in the camp of "the way we create and consume animal products is horrible, but the idea of consuming them at all is totally normal, except for dairy...it's kinda weird...but still."

Welcome to the '10s, where radicalism has been nearly-completely beaten by ultra-liberalism.

Now it's all about sectarian forced work-on-ourselves and ethical consumerism instead of attacking the very industry at the roots of the problem.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

go away. feed your dog. get off my couch. veganism is stupid and unhealthy.

Yer mom's stupid & unhealthy!
*devours cheeseburger*
*chains up dog outside*
*dies of heart attack alone in mom's basement*
stoopid veganssssss!

Heart attacks come from inflammation.

There are plenty of vegan foods that also cause inflammation.

Word to the wise: avoid seed oils.

Something like 40% of us diet involves these oils, and 80% of restaurant food involves these oils.

Are you really trying to misdirect away from the fact that animal protein/fat is the leading "food" stuff that contributes to heart disease because seed oils can also contribute to heart disease? Not to mention that meat eaters ALSO eat foods cooked in seed oils and are therefore doubly fucked.

Yes, the article is poorly written and seems more of a summary than a completely thought out piece, but you should really consider how brainwashed you are by decades of meat and dairy industry bullshit.

Those oils are widely used because they're cheap, not because big meat and dairy are trying to "brainwash" people.

Your reading comprehension has clearly suffered from your shitty carnist diet. Read it again then forgive yourself for your embarrassing comment based on your misreading.

Nope, it's fine. The part where you disappear up your own ass is at the beginning with the word "misdirect". There's no misdirection, it's not a conspiracy, you're probably just trolling.

We agree in principle if not in practice. Cheese is a hard thing to give up.
Communique of the Lacto Vegetarian Cell / Longboard Riders Action Direct ( LRAD )

Keep your identity politics for your petty-bourgie apartment and its in-crowd, please. Your ultra-liberal politics are as thin as toilet paper, and are good for the same purpose.

Was a reply to the authors of the article, not to the commenter above.

To the author of this post, Iwouls suggest you listen to Layla AbdelRahim and look at veganarchoprimitivism website by Ria Del Montana. You point your finger at others, I'm pointing my finger at you! Anonymous Author, if you so against anthropocentricism, then you must be against civilisation. Why? Because civilisation was created by humans for humans.

yes, the people who contributed to this essay are in fact anti-civ.

So how does a hardliner of this position reconcile with the fact that many animals eat meat? Is it just … not part of the discussion? I'm just curious. I'm also part native, so I'm harder to dismiss as a white liberal college student when I bring up ancient cultures that needed to get their protein that way. Lots of environments can't support human life at all without getting most of the calories from animal sources. This was true for like 95% of the existence/evolution of our species.

There's a fundamental pragmatism to hunter-gatherer diets, which is the answer to that common "why diary?" question and most other food sources that people find "weird" from their modern, extremely pampered perspectives. People eat whatever weird shit is viable because otherwise, they died a slow, horrible death. As true today as 10,000 years ago.

Only cultures with massive food abundance can even support these high-minded dietary principles, which I respect as a personal choice but when you get prescriptive with it, the arguments just aren't that good.

Animals that eat meat are called carnivores. Humans are not carnivores. It's also argued that humans are not even omnivores.

It's "argued" against all evidence ...

Chimps don't sometimes eat meat?

The model of reality is not reality. Moral position needs useless categories.

It's a pretty desperate position to try and argue that people don't eat meat, based in morality instead of data. Like I say, I respect people's choices but why pretend an ethical argument is a biological one?

Yes humans are animals. However, we behave differently to every other species in that we dominate, hyper-dominate all others. A great white shark or a lion does not prohibit others from feeding by dominating the sea/land and doesn't store food way or even waste much food, if any. Also, no other species suffers with obesity, only domesticated animals. Perhaps, humans should behave as other species and only exist without fire, without using nonhuman skins, no tools (maybe a digging stick). Native people are civilised and are hardly any different to most other cultures. If meat is essential to you, then why not eat your dead relatives, raw of course. Oh, and no other species drinks the milk of a different species and no other species drinks milk in their adult life! Humans are weirdos.

I mean … the hyper domination is a problem of large, industrial human societies and not the act of eating meat itself. The obesity thing is plainly not true, not to mention, irrelevant and then you just start with the hand waving, prescriptive nonsense.

To 16.47, Eating meat itself isn't the problem? Really? Listen to and read the work of Layla AbdelRahim: her detailed work into 'human as predator.' Dominating industrial societies stem from the same mind-set as dominating the forest. Name some species that suffer from obesity and why is it irrelevant?

Obesity:

You mean as what happens from a diet primarily composed of grain intake (especially of the processed, gmo monoculture type)?

A diet high in good fats, and low in carbohydrates is best.

You're pointing at meat, but not addressing the bigger underlying problem (including animal diets) of grain consumption, sugar consumption, processed derivatives (including those labeled gluten free, vegan), and seed oils (which are pro-inflammatory).

Vegan foods can cause heart disease. Sugar is pro-inflammatory (the body making no distinction between processed sugar and fructose in fruits), and plants in the legume and night shade families (black beans, tomatoes) can be for some people as well.

You can hate on meat or animal products or whatever the bone of contention (like whether aquatic bi-valves that can be grown like vegetables should be forbidden, or foraged unfertilized bird eggs should be forbidden from fhe vegan diet), but to ignore PRIMARY sources for health issues in diet is foolish. Pro-inflammatory foods are the biggest health issue here.

Add citrus fruits, and alcohol to foods that cause pro-inflammatory responses in some.

Basically, there's no evidence for a worldwide one-size-fits-all diet. That's why people bring up indigenous cultures to vegans. What variety of vegetation for inuits? It's the same with communistic minds, and their assumption that everyone indigenous will have to work in factories after the rev.

Let's not forget how beloved alcohol and cigarettes are by many of the radical community. You know, carcinogens that introduce free-radical damage into their vital systems.

We need a comprehensive view of health that undermines pro-inflammatory responses, as well as sedentism.

Where is there emphasis on combating sedentary (and conversely excessive cardio) life with an outlook that involves: breathing (sitting people need to be retrained to breathe from diaphragm not shoulders, and to correct lazy exhales due to poor pelvic floor musculature in years of sitting induced poor posture), stretching/mobility, environmental stressors (artificial light, rat and roach feces, alarm clocks interrupting sleep cycles, time spent in cars), sleep, meditation, strength training, and free unscheduled/unstructured play (to counter pace of work and city life with its schedules and demands, and to counter the viitamin d deficiencies primarily indoor people have).

But, who the fuck really has the time to engage a comprehensive outlook and lifestyle?

Over-consumption of animal proteins is a problem in the west. But, PART of a much larger problem, most don't have the luxury of time to tackle even a portion of in their scheduled, high-stress lives.

Re: let me help the dumb vegan with the ignorant question about species cannablism in mammals: PRIONS!

Ever heard of mad cow disease? Well, that's your answer about why we don't look at our dead as morsels. What would evolutionarily benefit a species about not eating itself off the planet?

Here's some more info on prions in the brain and what were to happen if we ate each other as a norm:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

Of course you can eat human flesh. Humans were eating humans way before the theory of MCD. I haven't said anything about eating ourselves off the planet or as a norm! Although, if we carry on eating meat, we may do just that! Humans typically are taught to eat meat. Children typically choose fruit if permitted to make their own choice between the two. How did homo survive before cooking flesh with fire? Simple, they mainly ate all things not flesh and they didn't drink milk either. They ate raw food. Nibbling through the day. Lots of raw fiber to slow down the indigestion, allowing food to be fully digested. How does an elephant or rhino have such a big skeleton without milk??? Calcium is in the plants as it's mineral. Look at RDA in differing countries, they differ. Why? Because RDA is a guess. Food is the big political powerful exploitative business. When humans turn (for example) a (defenseless and peaceful) cow into basically an inanimate object to be used and abused, we can do that to other females to including human females and eventually to each other. Yes, morality exists. It may or may not be objective, humans know they have morality based on, largely, not inflicting unnecessary suffering. If I HAD to (as a vegan) eat flesh to SURVIVE, I would. If you care about plants... more plants are eaten because of animal agriculture!

Whether humans are taught anything about diet is not the issue. The standard american diet is problematic.

You point at meat as a sin, yet don't acknowledge that fruit is really not that good for you, other than anti-oxidants found in things like seasonal berries. The body treats fructose the same as processed sugar. A high sugar diet damages gut health, joint health, immune system, and liver. Not to mention sugar masks pain,, promotes inflammation. Let's also not forget that sugar causes a similar endorphine response as opiates, and excessive high-stress cardio work outs. The insulin spikes of sugars and carbohydrates similarly fuck with stress-induced fight or flight responses.

Your morals are advocating dangerous shit. Carbs taken above 150mg daily are not conducive to health. No matter the amount of exercise, it's nearly impossible to lose weight at 150+mg carbs a day.

Your argument about morality is moot. Humans don't have access to a god's eye view of reality. We have no objective view point. You place too much emphasis on the human mind, forgetting that the shared living space is the prime organizing influence of all live on this planet. Just written out as an actor/active influence. Talk about hierchy...

What'sthe problem with humans no longer existing?

We didn't decide our entrance, and won't our exit.

Where have I said “meat is a sin?” Of course fruit is good for you. History tells you humans and fruit get along fine. No cooking needed. The fruit ripens and we can eat it and propagate the seeds in some cases. Generations have eaten fruit. Morality is not moot. Humans have morality and that’s that, like it or not. We understand causing unnecessary suffering is sick except for the psychopath/sociopath. Veganism stems from the peace movement. Most people want peace, want peace in their own life. Unnecessary suffering is part of trying the peaceful path. Humans have used all kinds of crap to justify killing unnecessarily and causing unnecessary pain. Fundamentally, humans are control freaks. We never used to be. Not until we have total control (which will never happen) but that is not going to stop us trying. The total control ideology has such a strong mental psychological grip which we are now so unwilling or unable to let go of. For example, look at the propaganda of the dairy industry, you know the happy cow in the field with her calf on a sunny day with the birds singing in the trees etc. It’s a complete fuckin’ lie. But many anarchists believe the state on this. See what happens to new born male chicks. It’s all part of the sick predatory/ control freakery of ideological human exceptionalism.

Anarchists, are you ready: “Two legs good. Four legs bad.” Well done boys and girls!!!

Black skin bad; White skin good. Male is good; female is bad. Rich is good; poor is bad. Big is good; small is bad. Death is good; life is bad. USA is good; Russia is bad Human total control good; wild life bad. Concrete is good; grass is bad.

All of a sudden, flesh is essential for humans. What a complete load of bollocks. Without plants, we're fucked. The End

Anon 11:43, you really are all over the place parroting agenda-driven pseudo science and defeating your own false arguments in the same breath. Please learn basic biology in regards to how our bodies turn food into energy. Further, there is no reason for you to argue healthy nutrition at all if your conclusion is "What'sthe problem with humans no longer existing?"

Listen to Anon 07:19. They are absolutely correct.

Nihilist comment, typically saying fuck all! Bye Bye

So many delicate flower commenters here ignorantly defending their unexamined, completely domesticated, carnist lives. What a sad, sad bunch.

And it's like to you... meat-eating appears to be the only line of criticism when it comes to human behavior. I suppose that if we'd all be moving towards a meat-free industry that'd be improving everything and making us less domesticated?

What a liberal.

What makes YOU not a liberal again? And it's like to you not meat-eating appears to be the only REEEEEEEEE!!! NORMIES!!!!!

Seed oils, processed foods and fats (thinking of vegan butter here), too many fruits, grains, cooked potatoes, legumes, ripe bananas, cooked (and not cooled rice) are all problematic.

They all contribute to a pro-inflammatory diet where gut health is sacrificed as insulin spikes.

Carbs, especially processed, are not condicive to health. 150grams/daily and above is damgerous.

I will give you vegans this: protein taken as more than 20% of diet converts to glucose. And beef farming is highly problematic.

Veganism doesn't do enough to address carb-ridden, processed, and pro-inflammatory foods...

Oh, and let me add in that there's a fungus that can be in peanuts that causes liver cancer.

Miso? Better not from japan. They've began cultivating in the fuck-u-shima region.

Turkish figs, dates, apricots? That shit got contaminated by chernobyl.

This article is as strange as the system of thinking it claims to oppose.

What gets called human and what gets called non-human, are in reality inter-related organisms that share one, same dynamic. All life forms make up what gets called 'earth' and 'universe.' They all share the same living space. The living space engenders life forms.

These conceptual separations of 'human' and 'non-human' create a hierarchical belief whereby the common living spaces that engenders all is completely ignored or left out of the picture.

We end up just setting up moral quotas for levels of what counts and doesn't count in maintaining purity. Living creatures called fungi are not viewed as sin, yet help hold together and play a vital role in the fabric of the earth's soul. This planet is a living organism! Aquatic bi-valves count, but plants that communicate (with each other and other life forms) do not.

Is pain even a good measure of how plants respond to shifts in the living space living dynamic they share inclusion in with insects, predatora, and other plants? There are vast, complex relationships playing out, and the amount of pain receptors isn't a good gauge.

We could all be vegan. But are we still going to have freeways? Well, those don't take animal migration into account. We still gonna have windmills, solar fields, pet cats? Sonar? Those are all going to fuck with life forms in consequences we can't foresee called 'externalities.'

We also can't skip over the concept of extinction, when it comes to non-human interference throughout the fossil record.

*meant to say extinction humans had nothing to do with.

I don't think they feel "pain", but hey wtf do I know?

What's been observed as fluctuations of their responses to different stimuli, including the apparent strangeness of reacting to different kinds of music, has to do with dynamics that are rather simple, yet not much talked about in Popular Mechanics and other bullshit efforts at "vulgarization".

Harmonics is directly related to energy waves, including electricity (funnily, the ultra-violet rays -and artificial lasers- are transporting electrons on harmonics that can impair or disrupt 60 hz electrical fields and currents). All plants are conductive of electricity, and in different ways, all living beings are also electrical. So when you change the harmonics of their living environments, these highly-sensitive life forms are reacting to these, even if slightly and gradually... like the effects of cell phones on our bodies and minds.

But there's of course the more mainstream notion of biochemical factors, that are also often related to bioelectricity.

Also what's your problem with pet cats? You another dog-worshipper?

What you refer as 'my problem' is indeed not a personal preference. What is a dog worshipper?

Are you unaware the amount of species household cats are eating off? It's not an ignorable amount.

Do a little research, instead of building easily dismantled personal attacks.

"Are you unaware the amount of species household cats are eating off? It's not an ignorable amount."

Yes I am. That's one of the reasons why I came back to the city with my cats. But if that's a lame debate on which pet does the most shit, let's also talk about dogs, as they produce way more toxic poo than cats. Anyways, turf wars being turf wars... But cats have always been a great benefit in our artificial urban environments, starting with getting rid of rodents that were causing dangerous epidemics.

Research on what? Stuff I already know?

How many of us know other anarchists who after spending a few hours in an anarchist (or similar radical space) feel compelled to get a burger as a form of antidote to the imposed moral purity? Over the years several have fessed up to me about this.

Where I'm from, the vegans don't try to enforce their diet on anarchist spaces. They just quietly complain to each other about our shameless carnist decadence.

Where I'm from the carnists understand the vegans are living in a way they truly feel important to themselves as individuals & to non-human animals, and they support them as comrades instead of talking shit.

I understand and talk shit all the time. Not mutually exclusive activities!

Troll comment here

Troll comment here

everyone has stories of moral asshats. do we have to stop there? if the world around us encourages us to take things for granted, like family structure, diet, work, etc, then isn't it helpful to hear different perspectives, even if they're expressed overly prescriptively?

Non-human animals are essentially automatons. Humans themselves were essentially automatons until the breakdown of the bicameral mind some 60,000 years ago. We have more worth inherently, yes. The anthropomorphism in ethical veganism is a trait of domestification and civilization - living hyper-socially will do that, which is totally fine because all sub-religions of primitivism and anti-civ shit deserves the marginalized dumpster fire of a scene they created. So, animal liberation? Yeah, cool, it makes sense to feel for non-human animals. But, it's not rational and dying on that hill is some liberal hilarity.

"In fact, the heavy reliance on meat is a very recent occurrence that came with domestication. So, the millions of years of evolution to the state we are in now is a lie. But we know that the whole system of domestication is based on lies. Also the concept that without us devouring the planet there would be too many of all sorts is a warped way of convincing people that the fact that their civilised consumption is leaving none is the best thing to have happened and to call it balance is really crooked." —Layla AbdelRahim

" I can quote anyone you can quote better. I can quote anyone better than you"
- Layla Abdel Rahim
"No you can't!" - Abrahan Lincoln
"Yes I can." -Jules Verne
"No you can't!" -John Zerzan
"Si se puede!" - Angela Merkel
"I can quote myself saying that meat is a habit of domestication even though all evidence points to this being a blatant lie. I am not an anthropologist. I am an ideologue. Vote for Jill Stein. White people were invented by Samuel L Jackson to justify his enormous debts incurred while inventing mayo. The moon is made of powder cheeze from a trillion Kraft MacNCheeze packets." -Layla AbdelRahim
"Layla Abdel Rahim is too cool for school." - ITS

There is a place for vegan values but at its worst it is a civilized set of values that try to deny what the terrestrial world actually is to an inherent degree. Predation is simply an a part of reality. Obviously the scientific industrial epoch of killing non humans needs to come to an end but beyond that come on.

Are we to just accept or dismiss things because they are "simply an [sic] a part of reality"?

Slavery is a part of reality. Industrialized ecological devastation is part of reality. Child rape is part of reality.

We anarchists constantly "deny what the terrestrial world actually is" because we choose the "better" it.

So GTFO with this poorly thought out defense of the existent.

'Better' and 'the existant' are some vague ways of interacting with the world.

People kill off 100 million sharks in the name of 'better,' each year. With 86% of the fish gone in the ocean, these bad sharks that don't get killed off sometimes come to where humans like to swim, and they do things to humans that are bad, because they are bad. And it happens so rarely that humans can't stop being paranoid about the bad sharks, and make paranoid movies about bad sharks being evil toward the humans. And a whole generation gets scared of going into the water, from a mechanical shark in movie where everyone is playing pretend. So more sharks need to be killed off, to make things 'better.' And they are. But no one asks what happened to their food supplies that made them go in search in different areas? They're just bad, and that fish in the ocean is for the human sacred Market.

We can talk about all of the mass graves and externalities humans have given way to in the pursuit of this vague belief 'better.'

There's no easy solution to handle the complexities of reality. Some problems are also unsolveable. Nuclear waste?

Did you write this non sequitur for your own benefit? Stay on topic, emile-ish.

Aww, cute personal attack. So cute to be so lazy.

Topic: 'better' or 'bettering the world' is a loaded concept, with a whole host of nasty unforeseen consequences. Examples were given, regardless of someones engagement being no more than silly attacks.

You mean nondualist anarchst? Yes, there are more than one. Surprise!

You've completely overlooked the prudence of quotation marks in '…because we choose the "better" it.' and your continuation based on that further embarrasses you.

Being existential about things does not mean that you blanketly accept them, you simply avoid the loaded general applied 'ought' to things. There is a fundamental level of suffering in the physical world that is simply unavoidable and predation is a continuation of this.

If you want to see that extremes of where anti-suffering oughts go simply look at the anti-natalists and ephilists.

"The basis of this economic system and political system, because it all organizes us in relationship to each other in terms of what role do you play in the production of resources, of energy, of whatever. And so the basis, the core of it, it’s an issue of the choices that we make in terms of our subsistence strategies. The choices that some of our ancestors made that created, that manifests themselves in this system, agricultural civilization, that is today manifest itself in global capitalism, actually at the root of it is a predatory system. And this predation is a choice that was maybe at a certain point in an ecological crisis, scavenging for dead cadavers was a necessity and was the right choice at that time for whatever group of people that suffered and took up that strategy, but usually you see that most animals who have been frugivores, gathering fruits, choosing the role as disseminators of seeds, like primates and birds and small mammals, most of them, when out of necessity they would take this choice of carnivory or scavenging, they would revert, and you see even chimps, they would take a decision when there’s encroachment of humans in their forest, they could wage wars, they could start hunting, but most of the time they would revert and go back when the system becomes ecologically viable again, they revert back to that original choice they made. And so at a certain point when a group of humans decided not to revert and took it a step further, that’s when hunting began, and with hunting, in order to institutionalize it as a cultural choice, as a strategy, alienation became necessary, and then technologies of this alienation and murder became necessary, and the choice demanded that these technologies be developed. And the development of the technologies ensured that this choice then remains. I could see it very clearly that even in India, where actually there’s still a lot of people who are vegetarian, vegan, there are hunter-gatherers who mostly gather, and still you see that the predatory economy frames our relationships to the world, to each other, to other species and ensures that whatever role we take we are still reproducing it. And so the task that I see now more clearly, if it doesn’t matter that you’re vegan, vegetarian hunter-gatherer, or it doesn’t completely bind you to the whole industrial predatory system, then the task is that we should undo this whole knowledge on which our desires are formulated, on which our fears are rooted, on which we base our daily maybe even unconscious decisions to participate in order not to perish, so we need to undo this whole anthropology of the human as a predator, and rewild both our knowledge and our relationships within our spaces. So, namely, if so far we are all stuck in anthropocentric relationships and spaces, and usually catering towards this anthropocentricism in the interest of humans, how are we going to break that anthropocentricism on a larger scale through the narratives that are given us as science, as education, as fiction, as imposed options on us, you know you have an option to work here or work there, do this or do that. " —Layla AbdelRahim

Eventually the animals will be veganized too.

Isaiah 11:6King James Version (KJV)

6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

And here I was thinking it was vegans who were objectifying and idealising non-human animals but no they're objectifying us too.

And can't see that they're doing just that, much like how its gets defensive and just sees 'everyone else is the problem.'

Damn did i spend time in a religious cult that viewed 'everyone else is the problem' with their 'shortcomings.' And damn is that a drug that people have a hard time quitting. Some never do, because of the positive reinforcement such thinking promotes in the in-group. And much like an mlm, the strict adherence rarely pays off for more than 1% of the in-group.

of what happens when you deprive yourself of complete protein and crucial animal fats. i might have written this once, but i quit being vegan and came to my senses -- my faculties and sense of humor returned promptly -- all was not lost!

You are truly a parrot of misinformation spread via the meat & dairy industry. The complete protein myth, really? Here: The Myth of Complementary Protein. Don't make me embarrass you about your "crucial animal fats" idiocy / troll job.

Capitalism continues because of fools like you.

Wow ... I hope you're trolling. Different commenter, by the way.

Read the article. It's correct and addresses the idiotic statement of the previous poster. Different, commenter too, by the way.

Having admittedly parsed I don't see any links to data dense evidence against the need for animal protein. What I see are nutritional ideologues with their own agendas. The parasympathetic nervous system hypothesis(particularly regarding PNS dominants) has not been debunked for instance and that's definitely bad news for vegan ideologues.

Yes, it is correct. And, SirEinzige, you're way out of your depth and no amount of Googling until you find something to back you flimsy point will save you. The only nutrient unavailable directly to a plant based diet is B12 and that is easily supplemented.

-- Anon, MD

B12 is a problem for most of us, vegan or not. B12 is a bacteria in the soil. Even domesticated cows etc are supplemented with B12 as the food they are given is so sterile. B12 supplements are being added to more and more foods such as energy drinks.

^ correct!

i was vegan and vegetarian for varying periods, as well as 'freegan' when the dumpstering in my area was still decent. i was also an obsessive consumer of all dietary writing, whether it be scientific, anthropological or wingnut/alt in focus. what i took away from all of it is that, when it comes to sectarian positions (pro/anti animal products, e.g.) many compelling but contradictory arguments can be made to affirm any of them. my primary measure for dietary choices, at least when it comes to whether or not to consume something, is how it affects my body and overall health -- a subjective measure that can be refined with practice. additionally, being conscious of where the food comes from can aid in getting both wholesome, nutrient-dense foods and having as good idea as anyone can as to how the producers relate to the land base where they live and what effect they have on the nonhumans around them. eating local is a fine solution in this sense, but is often an upper-class option in this world (as is having the resources to grow your own, which is what i do as much as my work reality allows). i often can't afford to eat organic or local, and don't have time to grow or forage everything i eat, so in general i choose what my body wants and what i can afford. what i'd really like is to have a successful hunting season this fall... but if nothing else, huckleberries are almost ripe here.

the last thing i do is let ideological prejudice compromise my health - and to the extent that i can (in more than just dietary choices) i limit the perceived impact i have on the world around me (but in the end, industrialism is ruining everything and anything you consume most certainly has ugliness behind it - from slavery to topsoil destruction. knowing this, i do the best i can). pursuing this topic with a fair amount of thoughtfulness and determination has led me AWAY from veganism as an artificially limited and false solution -- not a troll or a capitalist -- a vegan apostate!

Good points 09:13. That's basically my conclusions as well after going through a similar period.

Shut up, SirEinzige. They are not and you did not.

Boy you vegan ideologues are thin skinned when it comes to physical reality and life. How exactly do you know that I did not go through an ethical vegetarian vegan phase exactly? Do you have some type of 1st person verification that I am lying?

We love when you lie on the anarchist news dot com. Yes. And we have receipts.

Wow what, Anon 19:54? Science shocks you? You don't need animal protein for proper nutrition. Different commenter, by the way!

I'm not as fixated on nutrition as you, the part that made me roll my eyes was the suggestion that splitting hairs over nutrition and protein sources is one of the pivotal things that "keeps capitalism going".

Let's not get carried away. Food is only important in the sense that you have abundance or not. I've gone hungry due to poverty, debating protein sources is pretty abstract stuff to do with ethics, industry and lifestyles.

Hunger and food waste are fundamental problems. Voluntary dietary choices don't rank as high on my list.

It wasn't splitting hairs over protein sources that "keeps capitalism going" it was fools that never challenge what they've been taught to believe, by the capitalist system, about protein sources.

To your last point, the meat and dairy industry is a leader in environmental devastation and ethical vegans aren't in it just for voluntary dietary reasons, they actually give a shit about non-human animals and the environment.

No, it's armies. Guns, bombs, tanks, planes and nuclear arsenals that "keep capitalism going". It's intelligence apparatuses and prisons that keep it going, clueless people only make it easier.

"Give a shit" about nonhumans and environment IS ethics, I give a shit but it's not the same as starving. You seem to have missed my point about the difference between making choices and necessities.

everyone has missed your point. it's as clear as mud.

sigh ... ok, there's a difference between ethics and basic survival. I can't make it any clearer than that … sorry

saying things like 'anarchist gatherings that excluded vegan food' is a strange and strained way of putting things -- a way of castigating by way of drawing an imaginary and unlikely conscious intention. more often than not, the anarchists gatherings 'excluded' meat products and dairy, attempting to avoid the ire of the vegans who would be the ones who 'disrupt the atmospheric peace' with moralistic fumings (hunger pains for needed nutrients?) -- although, more often than not, everything but white rice, rotten bananas and stale bagels have been "excluded" from anarchist gatherings i've attended where food was served.

How about I kill childrenand eat them. Gives me nutrients. Sadly, moralists would kick me out of anarchism.

Johnathon Swift suggested the same centuries ago in regards to Irish babies and was welcome in most moral society because the proposition was expressed in a satirical vein. One may even include Jews or any other group in this hypothetical if it is worded satirically.

Lmao omg!
thanks Le Way

And Kuru disease in a strange evolutionary twist has given Nature the last grand amoral satirical laugh in the unethical gastronome quest for enjoyment.

Vegans also need to get savvy that synthetic techno 'fixes' ain't fixes. Yes, we all use plastic. However, vegans, generally, don't debate technology and it's impacts and vegan threads often don't mention conspicuous consumerism either and I'll add population growth to the list.

Yeah, bruh! Vegans be like, "imma use plastic cuz that's wat vegans do!" and you and me be like, "stoopid fuckin' vegans be usin all the plastic ruining good music and my uncle's hotdog cart's revenue because they don't understand the consumerism and birth rate like us meat eaters!" Right on Anon 08:56 you speaking truth! Stupid vegans and all their plastics ruining the oceans!

An argument about veganism...sigh. Look, some of us aren't 22 anymore.

thecollective should really just delete this thread because apparently discussing veganism butthurts internet "anarchist" carnists (IAC) on here more than most other things. it's ok, delicate IAC anons. it'll be ok. the mean vegans will eventually tire from your very scientific facts scientifically gathered from your excellent research and life experience.

Enjoy your heart disease and colon cancer, ya carnist haters!

Is this Jerry from nalpo? Hey Jerry.

I reject the premise that they're equal. Give an argument that isn't just an emotionally charged rejection of old norms.

Love seeing all the little moralists say they're not arguing about consumer politics ....when they aren't producing any of the food themselves to begin with.

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.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
N
y
F
P
S
C
d
Enter the code without spaces.