Home Blog Page 3

More Problems with Pacifism


More Problems with Pacifism

“Pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world’s thugs.”  •  Sam Harris, The End of Faith.


Quote of the Moment“The position we hold is often said to be ‘extreme,’ and those of us who hold it are said to be ‘extremists.’ The unspoken suggestions are that extreme positions cannot be right, and that extremists must be wrong. But I am an extremist when it comes to rape—I am against it all the time. … The plain fact is, moral truth often is extreme, and must be, for when the injustice is absolute, then one must oppose it—absolutely.”~ Tom Regan, philosopher, animal rights advocate.


While Mohandas K. Gandhi (1868-1948) and Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) upheld widely divergent approaches to their respective social justice movements, both agreed that violent resistance is better than apathetic responses to terror • Photo of Gandhi courtesy of Wikimedia Commons • https://commons.wikimedia.org • Photo of Mandela courtesy of mandela.co.za


NOTE: Do not read this section until you’ve read the two essays in Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything. You can also watch me explain the insanity of pure pacifism during the 2012 interview shown just below, at right. This is my response to anyone who disagrees with those pieces. If you still disagree with my position, don’t bother sending me an email because this will still be my retort, along with a line from the Pink Floyd song ‘Wish You Were Here’: “Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?”

Contrary to popular belief, pacifism is more evil than violence, and non-activist pacifists are incapable of using reason and rational thought when it comes to liberation movements. I say NON-ACTIVIST pacifists because these folks are not emulating Martin Luther King, Jr. when they write letters to corporations, sign online petitions, and spend five to ten hours a day on Facebook and Twitter. None of that qualifies as pacifism-activism, because King not only confronted hundreds of armed police officers in an endless array of street demonstrations, he went to jail dozens of times for intentionally breaking the law. He refused to apologize to judges, marched down the city streets he was banned from, and shed no tears in the jailhouse.

Non-activist pacifists have turned King’s brand of action-activism into nothing more than a public relations game of meaningless ideals. As philosopher Edmond Burke once said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Pacifism has actually convinced this “movement” to give its unwavering support to those who murder and rape animals, such as slaughterhouse-designer Temple Grandin, and staunch animal-eating documentarians/authors Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Morgan Spurlock. This caused me to break away from the animal rights “community” years ago.

It’s amazing that PETA, HSUS, and 99 percent of vegans and vegetarians embrace Grandin, Pollan, Schlosser, and Spurlock—along with convicted dog-killer Michael Vick—praising them in the media or on their websites, even though they’re responsible for harming millions of animals. Yet, whenever I show up, they all run for cover, even though I am responsible for saving the lives of millions of animals by converting tens of thousands of people (a conservative estimate) to the veg lifestyle.

As I stated in the essay Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything, even though Malcolm X and King disagreed about which tactics should be used to eradicate segregation, when King was asked to help stop X’s radicalism, he replied, “Don’t ask me to stop Malcolm X. Malcolm X will stop when racism stops!” If pacifists were capable of logical thought, they would take the same approach with me and substitute X’s name for mine, and racism for speciesism. Technically, we don’t have to agree on tactics, but NOT supporting me—and other activists who risk it all—is treasonous, and a slap to the face of every enslaved animal.

I find the pacifist position and all of their condemnations hurled at me to be inadequate for many reasons. First, for more than 10 years, I’ve been the only activist invited into college and high school classrooms to give more than 200 vegan lectures a year, while my 2010 Georgia Tech speech has been translated into more than 35 languages for more than 11 million hits on YouTube. I’ve been able to represent the animals effectively because I made a conscious choice not to be a disingenuous public relations pacifist politician [see the video just below this paragraph]. I never lie or conceal my feelings to placate evil customs and evil people. It’s funny how everyone claims to despise politicians but then they imitate them, and want me to be one, too.

Second, these people have never even bothered to read my essays on violence. They read an excerpt of an excerpt of an excerpt on the Internet. For the record, here’s the entire excerpt in question: “Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal! Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that sons accidentally shoot their fathers on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them were wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection.”

Third, why is everyone so irate with the rape sentences but completely nonchalant about the “sons-accidentally-shooting-their-fathers” line?

Rapists, murderers and child molesters should be vivisected, executed and dissected, allowing researchers the opportunity to gather useful information that would actually benefit human health for a change. I see nothing wrong with capital punishment because if you willfully destroy someone else’s life, then you automatically relinquish yours [see the interview near the top of this page].

For the pacifists who now wish to condemn me for supporting capital punishment, let me expose your insanity a little more. When you fight for the lives of people on Death Row, you condemn even more innocent animals to a murderous demise. What do you think convicts in prison eat? Carrots and tofu? Or the dead, dismembered bodies of animals? And if you wish to use the trite argument about executing an innocent person one percent of the time, let me know when society condemns executing 150 billion INNOCENT animals in the meat, dairy and egg industries 100 percent of the time! As for the lame “eye-for-an-eye-only-makes-the whole world blind” comment, when was the last time there was a blind mass murderer? I’ll take a blind compassionate world/person over a seeing evil one any day of the week. There’s NO nobility in protecting victimizers. Murderers, rapists and child molesters don’t need your voice. The victims are the ONLY ones who need help.

Have pacifists become so in love with their ideals that they’ve forgotten who the real practitioners of violence are? I have harmed no one while meat, dairy, and egg-eaters pay people to RAPE animals to impregnate them, pay people to steal newborn babies from their mothers, and pay people to kill the babies, and the mothers. I have harmed no one while people who wear fur pay people to rape foxes via anal electrocution, rape chinchillas via vaginal electrocution, and break the necks of minks, so that they can drape themselves in skin-coats. But hey, I’m a reasonable guy who’s willing to change his position on violence, and make a deal with all the pacifists in the “movement.” When the rapists stop raping the animals, then I’ll stop “wishing” or “hoping” that rapists get raped. And let me clarify something else. I think rape is purely evil. I don’t support it. Don’t be stupid. Rape is the most evil act of violence that can ever be committed, which is why I wish it happens to evil people. I hope Nazis, KKK members, and domestic abusers get raped, too. I certainly don’t wish for bags of lollipops and money to fall from the sky and gently land in their laps. I honestly think every rapist should have his cock and balls sliced off with a cuticle-remover while he’s fully conscious. Then, he should be forced to eat his severed genitals after they’ve been dipped in puke. After he takes the last bite, I personally want to be there to shove two 12-inch metal skewers through each eyeball, and then drag him into a room filled with 10,000 flies so he can be eaten alive. Go rent the movie Law Abiding Citizen and watch Gerard Butler’s character carry out some poetic justice on the man who raped his wife and daughter. It warms my heart to no end.

What’s more, anyone who condemns me for my rape comments is a pure hypocrite anyway, because when child molesters are convicted and imprisoned, EVERYONE says something like this: “I can’t wait until Bubba gets a hold of him in prison.” And don’t you dare deny it! What do you think Bubba’s gonna do when their paths cross? Counsel him about his troubled childhood, or forcibly penetrate (rape) his asshole? The problem with pacifists is that they don’t fully understand evil because they refuse to look at oppressive situations from the victim’s point of view—unless, of course, the victim is a fur-wearing ogress who gets raped in some fantasy retaliatory payback prose of mine. The animals who are raped and murdered see no difference between someone who violates them for their flesh and skin, or someone who does it to a human. If only the pacifists could understand this.

It’s also unfair that pacifists play the pacifism default-card in every situation, meaning that no matter what a non-pacifist says, the pacifists think their position is automatically right. What they fail to realize is that there are different avenues for achieving substantive change. I understand that violence isn’t always the best tactic for every situation, which is why I spend 100 percent of my time EDUCATING students in college and high school classrooms. Conversely, pacifism cannot be the appropriate tactic in every situation either. Sometimes evil people need to be killed. People who have NO compassion deserve NONE in return.

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948)

To prove once and for all how evil pacifism can be, let’s play a time-travel game. The year is 1945 and I’m being held captive with thousands of others in a Nazi concentration camp. Do pacifists support The Allied Forces who enter the death camps and MURDER Nazis in order to save me and the other victims [see the video just above, at right]? Or do the pacifists hold firm to Gandhi’s solution to the Holocaust? Even though the Mahatma was one of the most effective pacifist-activists in history, it’s time that everyone knew about his INSANE solution to the Jewish Holocaust. Gandhi thought that all the Jews imprisoned in concentration camps should have committed mass suicide in order to rouse the conscience of the world. And pacifists have the nerve to think that I’m crazy! Pacifism truly clouded his judgment just as it continues to cloud the judgment of animal rights people. Pacifism ALLOWS violence to continue unabated. And if you’re about to use that stale “violence-begets-violence” line, well, I’m sorry, but I must’ve missed that moment in history when killing thousands of Nazis caused them to commit more acts of violence against Jews. Exactly when did that happen?

And how did violence beget violence on July 2, 2013, when a knife-wielding lunatic took a two-year-old girl hostage at a Walmart in Midwest City, Oklahoma, and a cop killed him to end the standoff? Sometimes retaliatory violence is the only way to stop evil in its tracks. If pacifists truly oppose killing the armed maniac, then pacifists are clearly saying that the victimizer should be treated no differently than the victim. I shall forever be puzzled as to why pacifists perpetually fight for the rights of violent individuals, while constantly brushing aside a victim’s right not to be tortured and murdered.

Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

I also find it odd that animal rights pacifists refuse to condemn Nelson Mandela and his associates for trying to use violence in an attempt to end apartheid in South Africa. Mandela actually took part in guerrilla warfare training in Algeria, which is still one of the hotbeds for terrorism today. During his 1963 trial, he told the Court: “I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love for violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation. Without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle.” And what about this comment when he was released from prison after 27 years on February 11, 1990: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be reached soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.”

Why not condemn the great civil rights activist Rosa Parks for stating the following in her autobiography My Story: “To this day, I am NOT an absolute supporter of nonviolence in all situations (page 175).”

I refuse to condemn these wise, thoughtful, and necessary propositions, and the activists who lived and died by them. If people are truly opposed to using violence as a tactic, why should Mandela and Parks get free passes to promote and justify violence? I’ll be eagerly anticipating the pacifists’ forthcoming defense of Gandhi’s Holocaust solution, and their condemnations of Mandela and Parks.

If pacifism is so wonderful and effective, and there are ONLY a handful of animal rights people who promote and support violence as I do, why is it that animal rights people are seen as weird lunatics, and animals remain oppressed by the billion? It’s because no matter how much you act like a politician, and embrace pacifist ideals, evil people rarely change their evil ways unless they’re forced to. So I learned a long time ago to say what needs to be said, and to support what needs to be done, even if it goes against popular thought. And lo and behold, guess who became a pretty effective activist over the years. Go to the Comments and Conversions section from any page of this website, and spend a moment reading the thousands of testimonials from former meat, dairy and egg-eaters who made the world a better place because they listened to my message of compassion.

This discussion is now permanently over. CHECKMATE. I win. Pacifists lose.

Hardcore compassion right here form www.adapt.org

Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything


Empathy, Education, and Violence: A Time for Everything

Love does not always conquer hate, reason does not solely conquer ignorance, and nonviolent protest does not always conquer institutionalized violence.


Quote of the Moment“You may torture my body, break my bones and even kill me. And then you can have my dead body. But not my obedience.”~ Mohandas K. Gandhi.


Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) and Malcolm X (1925-1965) exemplified an all-inclusive approach to the matter of civil rights for African-Americans, incorporating elements of education, nonviolent resistance—and yes, violence when necessary • Photo by Marion S. Trikosco, March 26, 1964 • Public-domain image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons • https://commons.wikimedia.org


Essay by Gary Yourofsky

NOTE: The following piece was first written in 1997. It was updated in 2005, 2008 and 2013. By the way, for all the narcissistic, disingenuous pacifists out there who are more in love with their image than actual activism, why do you refuse to condemn anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela for this statement to the Court during his 1963 trial: “I do not deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love for violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation. Without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle.” And what about this comment when he was released from prison after 27 years on February 11, 1990: “Our resort to the armed struggle in 1960 with the formation of the military wing of the ANC (Umkhonto we Sizwe) was a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid. The factors which necessitated the armed struggle still exist today. We have no option but to continue. We express the hope that a climate conducive to a negotiated settlement would be reached soon, so that there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle.” Read the two essays below along with More Problems with Pacifism in order to be edified about proper tactical positions. You can also watch me explain the insanity of pure pacifism during the 2012 interview shown below, at right.

For the first time in history, animal rights activists are facing an era of unprecedented repression by the US and UK governments. With active ALF liberators hard to find, those who publicly support the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), along with former ALF activists, have been receiving the brunt of the discriminatory power that these governments routinely wield against social justice activists.

Terrorists or Freedom Fighters, a collection of essays published in 2004, ignited debate about the nonviolent liberation and arson tactics of the ALF, and the violent threats of injury or death aimed at those who directly abuse animals put forth by The Animal Rights Militia (ARM), Revolutionary Cells, Justice Department, me, Camille Marino, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, and a handful of other activists worldwide. (Vlasak ended up justifying the use of tactical violence to Ed Bradley during a “60 Minutes” interview in November ’05.)

Most people are unaware of this, but the great pacifist Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, “I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on White America of a black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail.” King’s position on arson ― not just the fire of the incendiary Molotov cocktail ― might surprise most people as well. He believed arson is a nonviolent act because buildings ― made of brick, wood, metal or some other insentient material ― are incapable of feeling pain.

When it came to activists engaging in violence or people doing nothing at all, King and the other great pacifist Mohandas Gandhi both chose violence. Please do not misinterpret what they meant. King and Gandhi were the utmost pacifists and firmly believed in nonviolent activism. However, both iterated time and again that something (violence) would be better than nothing (apathy).

I feel the same way. Without question, I prefer nonviolent activism like classroom presentations, tabling events, leafleting, sign-carrying protests, op-ed pieces, undercover investigations and civil disobedience. It takes a wider array of tactics, however, to achieve substantive change. Given the choice of apathy or someone liberating mink, burning down a research torture-laboratory, or killing a vivisectionist or other DIRECT murderer of animals, I will choose the aforesaid actions over apathy any day of the week.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) • Photographer unknown • Public-domain image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons • https://commons.wikimedia.org

Radical tactics have been righteously implemented throughout history to produce immediate results. The Allied Forces violently broke down the gates of Hitler’s death camps, killing Nazis in the process, and forever destroying the gas chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz. When the North took up arms and violently killed thousands of Southern racists, those justifiable homicides committed on behalf of black slaves were unchallengeable. Gandhi achieved Indian independence even though many Indians killed British soldiers, rioted in the streets and routinely set fires. The Black Panthers’ tactics of intimidation and Malcolm X’s “by any means necessary” philosophy did not hinder the civil rights movement nor the exaltation of Dr. King. In fact, when asked to stop X’s radicalism, King replied, “Don’t ask me to stop Malcolm X. Malcolm X will stop when racism stops!”

As one of the nation’s most outspoken animal rights activists, I take the same approach. When a meat-eater or news reporter whines, “The ALF breaks laws and burns buildings and the ARM supports violence,” I simply reply, “The ALF and ARM will stop when the abuse and murder of animals stops!”

Those who actively seek to end injustices should always be praised, not vilified. Gandhi once said, “There have been murderers and tyrants, and at times they have seemed invincible. But in the end they always fall. Always!” Arsons, liberations, or acts of intimidation and justifiable homicide cannot impede the animal rights movement because nothing can hinder the truthful, benevolent push to liberate animals from their human captors.

Malcolm X (1925-1965) • Photo by Marion S. Trikosco, March 26, 1964 • Public-domain image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons • https://commons.wikimedia.org

When the ALF liberates animals and makes an immediate difference in their lives, I am not sure how any rational individual does not side with the ALF. Should we instead wait for politicians and society to gradually find time to fit animals into their greedy, selfish agendas? In the same way Harriet Tubman’s Underground Railroad liberated blacks by stealing the “property” of whites, the ALF liberates animals by stealing the “property” of furriers and vivisectionists.

Furthermore, during the hundreds of ALF arsons over the last 30 years, no human has ever been injured or killed. This spotless record of economic sabotage is not accidental either. Members of the ALF adhere to a strict code of nonviolence, and have risked their freedom ― harming no one in the process ― for the animals who have no freedom.

Tens of thousands of foxes and mink have been given the chance to avoid anal electrocution and neck-breaking by the reprobates who provide skin to the fur industry, while dogs and mice have been liberated from sick, vicious experimenters and placed in loving homes.

However, since violence is an essential part of activism, even if an abuser of animals perished during a fire or other form of direct action, I would unequivocally support that, too. Empathy is not for those who enslave and kill animals, the guilty victimizers. Empathy is for innocent victims, the animals. Animal rights is not about being nonviolent to humans anyway, even though nearly every activist embraces a nonviolence-to-humans ethic. Animal rights is about freeing animals from violent, avaricious, heartless thugs who profit from animal misery and murder.

It is important to remember that the animal rights movement has been completely nonviolent since its inception yet people still view us with derision. Luminaries, oracles and contemporaries like Pythagoras, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tolstoy, Plutarch, da Vinci, Dick Gregory, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez have espoused the compassionate message of animal rights. Animals still remain enslaved nations killed by the billion. If peacefully protesting and educating the masses were the sole factors for compassionate change, animals would have been freed by now. Sadly, love does not always conquer hate. Reason does not solely conquer ignorance, or flat-out stupidity. Nonviolent protest does not always conquer institutionalized violence.

Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal!

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that sons acciden- tally shoot their fathers on hunting excursions [see the animated cartoon by Steve Cutts at left], while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection.

Those who truly care about animal liberation must view the animals no differently than any human they love. We should try and reason with those who enslave and kill animals. But that process alone cannot produce freedom. The time has come to forcibly free animals from their captors, even if that means injuring or killing someone in the process. It is not violent to physically stop someone from killing someone else. Using force to stop abuse or murder is a noble, justifiable act of vicarious self-defense [see the interview above].

Liberations, arsons or violence only evoke negative reactions because very few people ― activists included ― truly view cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits, mice and deer as equals. Until everyone accepts that animals deserve freedom and equality, the killing of animals will not cease, and people will continue to condemn activists like me, instead of abusers.

Once animals are viewed equally, it becomes appropriate to do whatever it takes to gain their freedom and stop their torture. Society disagrees with liberations, arsons or violence on behalf of animals because no one thinks animals are worthy of such generosity. I’ve often said that if I liberated children from a pornography ring in 1997, I would have been carried down the streets of Detroit as thousands cheered in support. Instead, I liberated 1,542 mink from an animal concentration fur camp, spent 77 days in maximum security and was branded a terrorist.

If mentally retarded children were in tiny cages at the National Institutes of Health waiting to be mutilated, blinded, burnt and killed by a vivisectionist, the tactics of the ALF and ARM would be unassailable. If black people were being hung upside down at a slaughterhouse as someone sliced their throats and dismembered their bodies, society would embrace the tactics of the ALF and the Revolutionary Cells. If our husbands, wives or best friends were traipsing through the woods as someone fired an arrow or a bullet destined for their chest, then we would all give thanks to the compassionate revolutionaries who call themselves ALF and Justice Department activists. If you honestly placed yourself in any animals’ position, anything would be acceptable to prevent your torture, enslavement and eventual murder.

This piece is not a call to abandon nonviolent activism and solely take up arms. The violent actions of past social justice movements were carried out by only a few, just like the violent actions of the animal rights movement that will one day be carried out by only a few.

Just to make everyone aware of my activism, in the late ’90s and early ’00s, I was arrested 13 times for civil disobedience and direct action, including the ALF liberation of 1,542 mink from the Eberts Fur Farm in Blenheim, Ontario. As of January 1, 2015, I’ve given 2,660 lectures to more than 60,000 animal exploiters at 186 schools in 30 states and several Israeli cities/schools because I believe veganism and education are the most effective forms of activism. I have yet to engage in violence but believe violence has its place alongside peaceful education and nonviolent protest. It is the amalgam of these methods that will result in the eventual freedom of animals.

What You Give Is What You Should Get

By Gary Yourofsky

The following editorial appeared in The Shield—the U. of Southern Indiana school paper—on Thursday, January 24, 2008.

Ever since Pythagoras promulgated peace to our planetary companions some 2,600 years ago, the animal rights community has utilized pacifism in its attempts to facilitate substantive change. As a proponent of education, my activism is no different. Each year I give around 200 lectures on ethical veganism to around 7,000 students explaining that victims of discrimination, slavery and murder come in all shapes and sizes. Many students thank me for removing their blinders and subsequently eliminate meat, cheese, milk and eggs from their diets. After all, consuming the cut-up corpses of murdered animals—and the things that ooze out of their bodies—is hardly an enlightened way of living.

However, author Sam Harris explained a major flaw with pacifism activism: “When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand.”

So, while my lifestyle and lectures are based on compassion, those who refuse to stop harming animals force me to support ‘eye for an eye’ and ‘by any means necessary’ philosophies.

In a world full of lying politicians and deceitful public relations, I hope you’ll appreciate my willingness to unapologetically say what I’m about to say.

Empathy should only be reserved for innocent beings—human or nonhuman. Institutionalized violence doesn’t simply vanish with a peaceful protest, a dose of logic and a whole lotta love. If people continually deny animals their inherent right to be free, radical tactics are necessary and justified. Physically preventing an abuser from committing abuse and killing a murderer to stop the murder are noble, vicarious acts of self-defense.

This is why furriers—who anally electrocute foxes or break the necks of mink—deserve the same treatment in return. The same goes for anybody who wears fur. If you pay someone to commit acts of cruelty, then you are complicit and, therefore, just as guilty.

Rapists, murderers and child molesters should be vivisected, executed and dissected, allowing researchers the opportunity to gather useful information that would actually benefit human health for a change. I see nothing wrong with capital punishment [see the interview above] because if you willfully destroy someone else’s life, then you automatically relinquish yours.

I believe in God but am vehemently opposed to organized religion and its attempts to sanctify cruelty in His name. Harming or killing animals is Satan’s milieu. Christians, Jews and Muslims need to represent their faiths through peaceful compassionate living, not the barbaric tradition of meat-eating or the inane rituals of singing songs to the sky, growing long beards, covering the head in cloth or dipping each other in water.

The next two paragraphs—originally penned in the “Empathy, Education and Violence” piece—are the reason why the USI administration canceled my lecture last year, and why journalism Professor Chad Tew and his students fought to change school policy and bring me back. Tew knew I had a First Amendment right to speak on campus.

“Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal!

Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that sons accidentally shoot their fathers on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them was wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection.”


Here’s What’s Wrong with Vivisection


Here’s What’s Wrong with Vivisection

Experimenting on live, captive, unconsenting animals is not only morally heinous; it is also an utter fraud.


Quote of the Moment“It is not an act of kindness to treat animals respectfully. It is an act of justice. It is not ‘the sentimental interests’ of moral agents that grounds our duties of justice to children, the retarded, the senile, or other moral patients, including animals. It is respect for their inherent value. The myth of the privileged moral status of moral agents has no clothes.”~ Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights.


Humanitarian and British author George Bernard Shaw summed up vivisection best when he once proclaimed, “Those who won’t hesitate to vivisect, won’t hesitate to lie about it as well.”

Vivisection is the act of cutting, drugging, burning, blinding, shocking, addicting, shooting, freezing, infecting and surgically mutilating live animals. Vivisection also happens to be more than just bloody science. It’s a bloody fraud. [See the video below, at right.] Every year in the U.S., around 20 million monkeys, dogs, cats, pigs and rabbits, and some 50 to 80 million rats, mice, and other rodents, are incarcerated and infected with mutations of human diseases, tortured in violent burn and brain-damage re-creation experiments, observed for meaningless data, and killed.

First, let’s understand that animals are a completely different bio-mechanical entity than humans. The anatomical, physiological, immunological, histological [dealing with the cell structures] and even psychological differences between humans and animals are too great to overcome. At this moment, a formula for making animal-derived research relevant to human health is non-existent. Animal research has not, cannot and will not save human lives because information cannot be extrapolated from one species to another.

Let me elucidate this point for you in a few ways. Every day in veterinary schools all across this world, the fraud of vivisection is substantiated. After talking with several veterinarians who unfortunately have been fooled into believing that animal research can be beneficial to humans, I asked them, “When you were in vet school studying feline leukemia, which animal did you study upon?” They all replied, “Cats.” I asked them why they didn’t use dogs for feline leukemia research. They replied that studying dogs for feline leukemia didn’t make too much sense scientifically. I then asked why dogs, cats and other animals are used for human leukemia research. Their silence exposed the scam. Veterinarians invalidate the widespread use of species-to-species extrapolation because they use cats for feline leukemia research, horses for colic research, dogs for canine distemper research and so on. They don’t use dogs for cats, pigs for dogs, and monkeys for horses. For the record, I ethically oppose what takes place in veterinary schools. Understand, though, I cannot oppose it on scientific grounds because it is scientifically justifiable to research on the species in question when searching for treatments and cures for that species. However, when it comes to using animals as predictor models for humans, my opposition is ethical AND scientific.

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

No matter how diligently animal researchers try, they can never re-create the spontaneously-occurring diseases that humans get. They can only re-create symptoms and give mutations. Plus, the experiments are always done in a controlled, manipulative environment where researchers can produce whatever answer they’re looking for. If researchers want to show that there is NO link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, no problem: just bring in some dogs, hook them up to facial mechanical devices, and force them to inhale smoke with every breath. It’s true that smoking tobacco does NOT cause lung cancer in dogs. Then again, I haven’t met too many dogs who smoke Kools in the first place. How about showing that diet drugs are safe for humans? No problem. Bring in some rodents, gorge them until they become obese and give them large doses of fenphen. For the record, the diet drug fenphen passed all rat research protocols but was taken off the market years ago after killing several humans. Over the years, thousands of drugs have ‘passed’ animal research tests only to harm or kill humans later on.

Were you aware that every two to three seconds someone in the world dies from a disease the medical community has known how to cure for nearly two thousand years? That disease is malnutrition. But in early 1998, with a hefty grant, The Detroit Free Press reported that animal researchers were close to identifying the hunger gene in rats. Huh? How many more meaningless, idiotic and wasteful experiments will researchers conduct and, more importantly, will society condone? The sad truth is that medicine—in its myriad of treatments—is a commodity. If you can’t afford it, then you don’t get it. Keep this in mind as well: not one of Jerry’s Kids has ever walked or been cured of muscular dystrophy even though the telethons have taken in more than $50 billion dollars. And that’s a generous estimate. It’s probably much more. The money has come from kind people who have been duped by the animal research community’s guileful, mendacious and insidious hook: “this latest mouse experiment is hopeful and promising.” Hopeful and promising—the two favorite words of a vivisectionist—can be translated into “send more money so I can continue my lifelong mission of gathering useless information.”

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

Dr. Christopher Anderegg, who received his medical degrees from the Yale University School of Medicine, explained, “It is impossible to predict human reactions to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals by testing them on animals.” Still, vivisectionists lie about the value of animal experimentation and remain unwilling to use the following 10 forms of true scientific research techniques; 1) human-based clinical research; 2) epidemiology (study, causes and distribution of human diseases); 3) cellular and molecular biology using human-based tissue and cell cultures and in vitro; 4) autopsy research; 5) biopsy research; 6) computer models using virtual reality, simulators and 3D programs; 7) mathematical models using formulas to determine drug concoctions and reactions; 8) case studies; 9) human-based DNA/genetic research; 10) trial-and-error methodology.

Fortunately, some people and organizations are responding to the truth. Dozens of charities like The Easter Seals Foundation, The American Kidney Fund and The International Eye Foundation, to name a few, only use the aforementioned methods of scientific research and, more importantly, refuse to perform or fund any form of animal research. So, if Easter Seals engages in essential non-animal-based research for birth defects, while The March of Dimes engages in vivisection because it claims that’s the only way to conduct birth defect research, I ask you, “Who’s lying?” I hope you feel the same way I do when asked to select between two diametrically opposed positions. Personally, I always side with the victims of injustice. Since healing human beings cannot be based upon violent protocols and human medicine cannot be based upon a false, duplicitous model, it seems clear to me who’s lying. Polio victim Linn Pulis once eloquently said, “I would not want to promote research on animals. Fortunately, only my back is twisted, not my mind.”

Dr. Richard Klausner, animal researcher and former director (1995-2001) of the National Cancer Institute, a huge animal researching entity, once said, “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply doesn’t work in humans.” In the February 11, 2013 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the headline of a 10-year National Institute of Health (NIH) study read, “Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases.” NIH director Francis Collins stated, “If it works in mice, so we thought, it should work in humans. But 150 drugs that successfully treated sepsis in mice later failed in human clinical trials.” Sepsis affects 750,000 people in the U.S. every year, killing one-fourth to half of them!

For some amazing information on why vivisection is unscientific, please check out Americans, Europeans, and Japanese for Medical Advancement. It is the website of Dr. Ray Greek, the world’s foremost expert in determining the value of all medical research. And watch the documentary Hidden Crimes also. Recorded in the 1990s, it is still one of the most insightful documentaries about the unethical and unscientific nature of vivisection. [There are eight segments on YouTube; the first of these is presented at left above.] Also, as if to show how archaic animal models and experiments truly are, even the University of Pittsburgh, the American university which tortures the largest number of animals annually, has ceased using animals in one of its courses.

Dr. Jerry Vlasak: Physician, Activist, Anti-Vivisectionist

NOTE: The following piece was written by Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon in several California hospitals, and one of the world’s grittiest animal rights activists. Dr. Vlasak has been arrested, and physically assaulted, simply for coming to the aid of Canadian seal pups during the annual Canadian seal massacres. (You can e-mail Dr. Vlasak by clicking here). Read what Dr. Vlasak has to say about the inefficacy and moral bankruptcy of vivisection:

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

On a daily basis, animals are drowned, suffocated and starved to death; they have their limbs severed and their organs crushed; they are burned, exposed to radiation and used in experimental surgeries; they are shocked, raised in isolation, exposed to weapons of mass destruction and rendered blind or paralyzed; they are given heart attacks, ulcers, paralysis, and seizures; they are forced to inhale tobacco smoke, drink alcohol, and ingest various drugs like heroin and cocaine.

Those who perpetrate these still legal crimes, their utter and complete violence, callousness and indifference against non human animals, can’t and don’t want to see that what they are doing is not only a crime against God, Allah, Buddha, nature and life itself, but results in the suffering and death of millions of humans. The University and pharmaceutical industry’s addiction to archaic and outmoded animal research results in millions of humans getting sicker, fatter and dying of completely preventable diseases.

With all the millions of dollars wasted—and I repeat, wasted—on the scientific fraud of vivisection, the only result is that over the past half century Cancer deaths are UP, Strokes are UP, Heart Disease UP, Diabetes UP, and Obesity way UP.

I became a surgeon, a doctor, in order to save lives. I spent many years in preparation for my being able to work as a doctor; four years of university, four years of medical school, a year of internship and then five additional years of surgical residency. I, like the rest of my fellow students, was naïve and impressionable. We had been brought up and brainwashed by the meat and dairy industries to think that flesh and cow’s milk made you strong and was good for you; and we had been brought up and brainwashed to believe that animal experimentation was a necessary evil and had to be done in order to save the lives of our patients. Like the billion dollar meat and dairy industry spin machine, the university system and pharmaceutical industry has done a very good job at taking young impressionable students and addicting them to outmoded and unscientific animal research.

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

I’d like to tell you two short stories. The first is about a five-year-old girl who came into the emergency room with appendicitis. The little girl was so obese that her breasts were as large as a girl in her teens, and she weighed twice as much as a normal child her age. She needed an emergency appendectomy and the surgery I performed was made much more difficult by her obesity. When patients are obese, their fat layers complicate not only the actual surgery being performed, but the complication rate after surgery drastically increases. The little girl already had type II diabetes, which is now common in American children. Type II diabetes is completely preventable and has historically been seen in adults who are obese themselves. But because of the meat, dairy and sugar industries, we have a new generation of children who are sick, fat and miserable. The little girl made it through surgery and when she was recovering I sat down with her and her parents and spoke to them about a low fat vegetarian diet and drinking soy milk instead of cow’s milk, which as you know is linked to all kinds of illnesses.

I told her that a low fat vegetarian diet is proven to prevent the most common diseases that millions of people die from every single year; diseases such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and hardening of the arteries. The mother began to cry and said that her little girl was teased by the other kids and couldn’t even play like a normal child because of her weight; that she was always coming down with ailments and that she was lethargic and fell asleep in school. Then the mother looked at me with tears in her eyes and asked “Why hasn’t any other doctor given us this information?” This scenario is common in my practice, and is the direct result of the absolute power, greed and corruption of the meat and dairy industries.

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

The next story is about my introduction into the world of vivisection, while I was a surgical resident. I was told that I could make a name for myself if I published papers and experimented on animals; and I was told that universities were given LOTS of money by the government as long as they continued to do experiments on animals. Being the naïve young doctor and wanting to follow the lead of others, I did a year of vivisection and visited animal labs throughout the country. What I learned and what I saw with my own eyes was mind-boggling. I learned that 85% of all the data gathered from animal experiments was literally thrown away because it was of no use to anyone, human or nonhuman; never even published, much less used to help people. Almost all of the remainder of this data was never found useful for human healthcare.

And that 1 or 2% of data that was possibly, one day, maybe going to be useful in helping people? That data could have been obtained more accurately and cheaply using modern, progressive non-animal methods. Then I learned that the pharmaceutical companies spent millions of dollars taking doctors out to dinner and paying for lavish vacations for them and their families, and in turn these researchers were to manipulate animal experiments to get the results that the drug industries wanted. Then I learned that the way universities get grant money isn’t by coming up with the best and most scientific research methods, but by continuing to use animals as a model because of the billions of dollars made in the vivisection industry. I learned that the vivisection industry is like the Mafia; the scientists and drug companies who engage in animal research will do whatever it takes to continue the practice even though it not only harms humans, but causes enormous agony and suffering to the animals being experimented on.

Click here to visit Occupy for Animals, then click “Research” at the top for more information, as well as gruesome images and video

Greed, corruption and absolute power; these are the things that drive the vivisection industry, NOT saving lives or preventing disease. In a world that has discovered gene expression and can look at diseases on the cellular and molecular level, animal experimentation has no place—and I repeat, NO PLACE—in 21st-century science. We now know that based on molecular biology and gene expression, a drug that reacts a certain way in a male rat, may react completely differently in a female rat. But what about primates that share 99% of our DNA? It’s not the 99% that’s important, but the 1% that makes the difference in a non-human primate reacting totally differently to a medicine or surgical procedure than a human primate.

We are not going to save the lives of our fellow humans by using archaic, outmoded animal experimentation. The scientists who still use animals in their research are not only frauds, but are addicted to an outdated form of research. Colin Blakemore for instance, who has sewn kittens’ eyes closed for fun and profit, is no more of a true scientist than the mad scientists in the monster movies we watched in the ’50s. Blakemore is not a doctor. Like most animal experimenters, he is simply a wanna-be medical doctor who didn’t have the social skills nor the brains to make it through medical school. And those medical doctors who are performing experiments on animals are simply the instruments of a corrupt university system and the pharmaceutical industry.


Xenotransplantation is an experimental procedure in which animal organs or tissues are transferred into human bodies. This is obscenely unethical because animals weren’t created to be our spare parts, just like they weren’t put here to be sandwiches. Trying to justify one unethical, immoral practice (meat-eating) with another (xenotransplantation) is vicious and invalid. It’s like saying, “Since children are molested, we might as well make child pornography films.” One evil act should not perpetuate another. It’s shameful and vile that humans have turned animals into commodities. We never seem to learn from past mistakes. Whites used to view blacks in the same regard. Men used to—and still do in many cases—view women as commodities. Discrimination is always wrong, which means that speciesism is just as irrational and nefarious as racism and sexism. If America instituted Europe’s PRESUMED CONSENT, there would be no shortage of organs, and people wouldn’t be looking to exploit animals further. Presumed consent means that everyone who dies is presumed to be a donor UNLESS stated otherwise. So people have a right to opt out of organ donation, but one has to take the initiative to opt out. Xenotransplantation is also bad medicine. It has never been successful. Although both beat and pump blood, baboon hearts and pig hearts are physiologically dissimilar to human hearts. And no amount of medical tinkering can compensate for that inherent difference.

Anti-Vivisection Resources on the Web

The images on this webpage are courtesy of Occupy for Animals. Please visit their website and click “Research” at the top for much more information about the cruelty and inefficacy of vivisection, as well as many more disturbing images and videos.

Thank you www.adaptt.org for this peice.

Here’s What’s Wrong with Hunting


Here’s What’s Wrong with Hunting

“Woe to the crafty who hurt or abuse the creatures of the earth. Woe to the hunters for they shall be hunted.”  •  Jesus, Gospel of the Nazirenes 14:6-9.


Quote of the Moment“Animals are my friends. And I don’t eat my friends.”~ George Bernard Shaw.



NOTE FROM ME: Before you read the essay, I want to expound on a few points.

1) The Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP) is still in existence. And every state has a program like DRIP. It might not be called DRIP but there are DRIP-like programs all over the U.S.

2) Here is a detailed explanation of sex-biased hunting. If we didn’t have sex-biased hunting, there would be an even ratio of male deer to female deer. So, if someone took a sample group of 10 deer—anywhere—there would be five males and five females. The five males would impregnate the five females who would then give birth to five offspring. However, after decades of killing big bucks for their large racks, we now have ratios of 7-to-3, 8-to-2, or 9-to-1 FEMALE to male. Let’s take the 7-to-3 ratio. We now have three males impregnating seven females (we know males can impregnate as many females as they come in contact with). Then seven females give birth to seven offspring which means there are a minimum of two EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer due to sex-biased hunting. But, let’s go further. Wildlife biologists have confirmed that when deer and other animals (including humans during war times) feel their population is being decimated, as is the case after hunting season ends, the majority of all the females give birth to twins or triplets. So, let’s take the twin scenario. Seven females are now giving birth to 14 babies instead of the original five (if our society didn’t hunt), thereby having 9 EXTRA babies per sample group of 10 deer. When you multiply the extra babies over the entire Michigan herd, you have an “extra” 500,000 to 700,000 deer every year. And guess how many hunting licenses they issue every year? You guessed it, between 500,000 and 700,000. Plus, that’s how the Michigan herd grew from 500,000 in the 1970s to nearly two million today. This scenario obtains in every state, with the numbers varying only slightly from state to state.

3) The only excuse to kill and eat animals would be purely for survival. But this scenario is rare. The Inuit, who live in an icy environment, come to mind (which is why I’ve never traveled to Alaska to lecture). I’ll never understand why people who reside in NON-ICY or NON-DESERT settings hunt, kill and eat the flesh of animals. Habit, tradition, convenience or taste are invalid, barbaric reasons to harm animals. MURDERING and COMMODIFYING animals are crimes. Murder is murder whether victims stand upright, walk on all fours, have fur, feathers, horns, beaks or gills. Self-defense, and vicarious self-defense (defending others who cannot defend themselves), are the only justifications for murder. Commodification is when humans turn animals into inanimate objects and can’t see them for anything else. Cows have been turned into shoes, briefcases and hamburgers. Chickens have been turned into buckets of wings. Deer have been transformed into unwilling participants of a bloodthirsty sport, then into severed-head wall-trophies and venison burgers.

4) When humans are treated the way hunters treat animals, people scream “holocaust!”, “genocide!”, “massacre!”, and “bloody murder!” Yet, according to the hunters’ mind-set, animals are “game” who deserve to be killed. This “game” is devoid of rational thought, decency and kindness. It is, quite frankly, sociopathic behavior [just watch the two videos on this page, especially the one at the top]. I’ve watched hunting and fishing shows on ESPN for more than 25 years. As a sports junkie, I have to wait for the blood-shows to end weekend mornings before GENUINE sports shows air. I hear excitement in the hunters’ voices before they pull the trigger or shoot the arrow. No need to fabricate the true reasons for deer-hunting, or any other animal-killing moment. Hunting and fishing are bloodsports, plain and simple. Additionally, hunters aren’t exonerated from their killing just because they do it themselves. In fact, their killing makes the hunters directly responsible, as opposed to people who buy their meat at a supermarket. The latter are just accomplices who pay someone else to commit the crimes. Purchasing someone else’s kill is still unequivocally wrong and evil, but killing and harming directly shows more psychotic behavior than could someone who cannot, or would not, harm and kill directly.

Hunters are Terrorists of the Animal World

By Gary Yourofsky

The following essay was published as an editorial in The Detroit News on April 20, 2001. It subsequently appeared in the book Hunting: Opposing Viewpoints, published in 2008 by the Gale Group/Greenhaven Press.

I am the founder and president of Michigan’s most outspoken and uncompromising humanitarian organization, ADAPTT. Nearly 80 high schools and universities have invited me to educate and enlighten students about animal liberation, ethics, justice and kindness.

Before I refute every hunting lie, let me begin with two quotes from some well-known animal rights activists.

The first one is from Mohandas Gandhi. “The life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature is, the more it is entitled to protection from humans from the cruelty of humans.”

The second quote from the great philosopher Pythagoras. “As long as humanity continues to be the ruthless destroyer of other beings, we will never know health or peace. For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed those who sow the seed of murder and pain will never reap joy and love.”

Now, contrary to the rosy picture hunters always paint about themselves—the noble hunter, the honest hunter, the caring hunter, the concerned hunter—let’s run down a quick list of noble hunting adages:

  • Shoot more and shoot more often, I’m a gut-pile addict, whack ’em and stack ’em, live to hunt/hunt to live and kill on.
  • And how about this comment from Ted Nugent, the world’s most outspoken animal-killer and just about every hunter’s hero: “I contribute to the dead of winter and the moans of silence, blood trails are music to my ears. I’m a gut-pile addict. The pig didn’t know I was there. It’s my kick. I love shafting animals. It’s rock ‘n’ roll power.” (World Bowhunter’s Magazine, Volume 1, Number 4, May 1990, page 12)

It’s hard for animal rights humanitarians to discuss the truth about hunting when we’re constantly dealing with lies about overpopulation, lies about kindness and lies about science.

ADAPTT is fed up with hunters, their government cronies and all of their sick mentalities. The so-called “experts” who work for the DNR and the NRC are not “experts.” They’re hunters and hunt supporters.

And hunting is not sound science. It is only sound fun for unsound individuals who commit cowardly acts. And it sounds to me that any sound person who possesses a scintilla of sound sense would understand that soundly truth.

To appease hunters in 1971, the DNR began serious efforts to change the “old forest” situation in Michigan. There were around 500,000 deer at that time which wasn’t enough to please the hunters. Therefore, the DNR instituted the Deer Range Improvement Program known as DRIP which called for the clear-cutting of 1.2 million acres of forest creating a more accessible food supply for deer and further stimulate reproduction. The DNR also has always issued a disproportionate number of licenses to kill male deer, because killing males instead of females causes the females’ internal reproductive mechanism to go haywire. Then, she ends up giving birth to twins and even triplets to keep the species going.

The DRIP program and sex-biased hunting has caused the deer herd to level out at around 2 million animals last year.

For the record, hunters cause an increase in deer-car accidents and contribute to crop damage.

In 1972, there were 10,742 deer-car collisions. Last year there were about 70,000. Gee, I thought hunters were hunting to reduce deer-car collisions? In 1996, The Michigan Farm Bureau even threatened to file a class-action lawsuit against the DNR for solely catering to the needs of hunters.

By the way, as deer-car accidents and crop-damage steadily increased over the years, here’s what Dave Arnold, a DNR executive, had to say to The Detroit Free Press on January 1, 1980: “Don’t lose sight of the purpose of the program. When the DNR decided several years ago to try and increase the herd to about one million animals, we knew the auto collision rate and crop damage would rise.”

Here’s what Ned Caveney, a DNR state forester, had to say to the Northwoods Call a Charlevoix paper on May 26, 1991: “In Michigan, we manipulate forest habitat to produce amazingly unnatural deer numbers — up to two million of the critters some years. That probably approaches two million more that existed before man got into the act.”

In the ’90s, pro-hunting governor John Engler created The Hunting and Heritage Task Force in order to expand hunting and fishing opportunities to the public which is the same reason why the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exists. By the way, the USFWS offers 290 hunting programs and 307 fishing programs on the 514 national wildlife refuges throughout the U.S. Paragraph six of Engler’s Hunting and Heritage Task Force edict states the following: “While Michigan offers widespread opportunities to hunt and fish, more could be done to encourage participation, especially in high population centers. All divisions within the DNR should work together, making hunting and fishing more accessible on both public and private lands. Where possible, expand opportunities to hunt and fish within urban parks and recreation areas.”

This was the sole purpose behind the recent deer killings at our metro-parks. Not because the deer were eating up all the trillium plants. The HCMA board of commissioners wouldn’t know the difference between trillium and helium. Moreover, humans are the only animals who destroy land and take more than they need.

The metro-park killings didn’t take place because the hunters wanted to donate food to the hungry. That’s just a clever public relations gimmick to try and place a halo around those who murder animals for fun. It is far more cost efficient to feed hungry people spaghetti and stir-fried tofu, and you can feed more people that way too.

Everyone must understand that wildlife management is an illusory concept created around 100 years ago. There is no such thing as wildlife management. Humans cannot manage nature. The only managing humans should be doing is managing to stay out of the animals’ space.

And, once again, it is unjust, stupid and contemptible that the DNR and NRC—made up entirely of hunters and hunt supporters—make decisions about the fate of wild animals. That would be akin to allowing pedophiles to write child protection laws and misogynists pen domestic abuse laws?

Artwork by Anita Sidler • Like this print? Click here to visit Anita's web store on Etsy • PLEASE NOTE: This image cannot be used under any circumstances without Anita's permission; contact her at www.anitasidler.com

Do hunters eat their kills? Yes. But do hunters hunt for food? No! They hunt for the thrill of the kill. They receive a rush. A super-shot of adrenaline. It’s bloodlust and dominance. It’s arrogance and selfishness. It’s hatred and brutality. It’s dishonor and viciousness. It’s murder and it’s obscene.

Hunters always use the excuse that deer are going to starve to death during the winter as if starvation wasn’t a natural process and nature’s way of controlling populations and the ecosystem’s way of working.

Starving deer provides food for scavenger animals and is nature’s way of weeding out sickly animals and allowing the strongest ones to reproduce.

A bullet to the head or an arrow through the chest is not a solution to starvation. But, furthermore, hunters don’t even shoot starving deer. They don’t make good trophies and don’t have lots of meat.

I dare anyone to show me a photograph of one hunter last year who shot one emaciated deer. Just one. Hunters shoot big bucks with big racks for big trophies. Watch their TV shows on PBS and ESPN and TNN. That’s all they talk about—big racks and big trophies.

On April 17, 1989, in The Free Press, Nugent said this about hunting: “I don’t hunt for meat. I hunt to hunt.”

In 1990, Nugent said the following in his World Bowhunters Magazine: “Nobody hunts just to put meat on the table because it’s too expensive, time-consuming and extremely inconsistent.”

For the record, I never threatened to harm someone’s child over the recent deer-killings in our metro-parks. I threatened to take a bullet for the deer and form my own deer-police unit to protect deer from hunters. But I did challenge about six sissified animal-killing hunters to show me how tough “tough guys” really are. I wanted to fight these bullies and put them in their place. Unfortunately, as usual, they refused to take me up on my challenge. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned in six years of intense activism, animal-abusers are cowards who would never fight someone who would fight back.

To obtain more information about the industry of hunting, read How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?

Please share this piece and encorage compassionate interactions with animals instead of harm.

Taken from www.adaptt.org.

Here’s What’s Wrong with Rodeos and Horse Racing


Here’s What’s Wrong with Rodeos and Horse Racing

These two animal-abusing industries are no less depraved than all the rest; they spell enslavement, torture, and death for their captives.


Quote of the Moment“It is not an act of kindness to treat animals respectfully. It is an act of justice. It is not ‘the sentimental interests’ of moral agents that grounds our duties of justice to children, the retarded, the senile, or other moral patients, including animals. It is respect for their inherent value. The myth of the privileged moral status of moral agents has no clothes.”~ Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights.



The rodeo is a vicious industry of abuse and cruelty. The website SHARK Onlinehas exposed rodeo depravity like no other. See the video just below at right, for example.

Horse racing is an extremely abusive industry as well. In the wake of injuries to the race horse Eight Belles in May 2008, I wrote an exposé of the cruelty that is too frequently hidden from public view. It was subsequently published in The Oakland Press(Michigan) on Thursday, May 15, 2008, and is presented just below.

Abuse Is Abuse, Of Course

By Gary Yourofsky

QUESTION: Why is the horse the only mammal who cannot have a broken leg repaired?

ANSWER: The horse is the only mammal that can be insured for millions of dollars!

As more than 150,000 thrill-seekers gathered at Churchill Downs in Louisville last Saturday to bet on which animal could run a circle the fastest, more than 14 million TV viewers witnessed the inherent cruelty when horses are forced to race. Eight Belles broke both of her front ankles shortly after she crossed the finish line in second place.

Ankle injuries are all too common in this animal-enslaving enterprise that breeds 1,000-pound stallions for huge, strong upper bodies but ignores their human-sized ankles that carry the body’s weight. This genetic-altering and selective genetic-breeding process is akin to the meat industry’s breeding of pigs who have huge, extra-fleshy upper bodies but weak arthritic legs.

The techniques used to dominate horses are vile. In fact, the word “breaking” as in “breaking a horse” doesn’t involve whispers, contrary to what many people want to believe. It is physically and psychologically abusive. Getting horses to allow saddles on their backs is the first step of domination. Animals are locked into a small area where they cannot escape. Horses quickly realize they must acquiesce to the demands of their human captors or face the consequences—which can include food or water deprivation and even killing (euthanasia) if the horse is deemed unmanageable. When the saddle is finally attached, the horse desperately tries to shake it off because the cinch is painfully tight around the hypersensitive waist area.

Animal abuser Trent Normandin even states the following on his website: “The horse goes to great lengths to get the strange object off his back. Trent allows the horse to try to shake off the saddle and learn that he cannot.”

Then it’s time for the bit to be forced into the horse’s mouth so their every movement can be controlled. This cruel and vile device—which used to be shoved into the mouths of black slaves in America when they were auctioned off to white businessmen—forces the horse into full submission. The bit is intentionally placed behind the front cutting teeth and behind the back grinding teeth. When the rein is yanked, the steel implement painfully grinds against the teeth, the roof of the mouth and the cheek area so the horse will submit to the demands of the rider and turn left or right, or stop. The mouth is one of the most sensitive parts of anyone’s body, therefore making it not only evil to control someone in this way, but purely fallacious for those in the racing and equestrian industries to call themselves horse-lovers! Intentionally inflicting pain and discomfort on someone else is hateful, not loving.

After the bit is in place, the mounting of the animal which—for the record—does not want to be mounted, is next. Normandin again acknowledges the inherent cruelty of riding a horse: “At this point, the average horse furiously rebels and may buck and rear.” It should be abundantly clear that the breaking process does not benefit the horse in any way. It is only a benefit to those who wish to reap profit from the horse’s body.

Many racing fans also claim that horses naturally love to run. This is misleading in two ways. First, loving to run and being forced to run are two different things. Every being under the sun, except maybe the sloth, loves to run. So this is a ridiculous rationalization. Animals and people, however, want to run on their own terms, when they feel like exercising, playing, or escaping from a tenuous situation. Secondly, as the nation’s only traveling animal rights lecturer (more than 1,600 lectures in 27 states), I have seen thousands of horses in fields along Americas highways and visited many sanctuaries over the years. I have still only seen horses run once! It happened at the SASHA Farm Animal Sanctuary in Manchester, Mich., when a handful of their rescued horses were introduced to a new field in 2003. Their dashing excitement quickly faded after a few minutes, and they went back to their true love: grazing! Not running! Horses, when given the chance, graze as much as cows.

Meanwhile, I have yet to mention the whip. When this weapon is used or threatened to be used, I am not sure how any rational individual can claim that this obscene industry is humane, benign or necessary in the 21st century. Civilized societies are supposed to show compassion and act kindly and mercifully toward one another and the creatures that live amongst them.

Here’s some information on the equally cruel greyhound racing industry.

All credits to www.adaptt.org. And shout out to Bitesize Vegan’s Emily for her awesome videos.

Here’s What’s Wrong with the Circus


Here’s What’s Wrong with the Circus

For animals “trained” in circuses, there is no such thing as “positive reinforcement”—only punishment, deprivation, torment and torture.


Quote of the Moment“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”~ Mohandas K. Gandhi.


The circus is an animal-slavery enterprise. The issue of an animal-oriented circus being abusive is moot. In his book The Circus Kings, Henry North Ringling, a founder of the The Ringling Brothers, stated, “It is not usually a pretty sight to see the big cats trained. When the trainer starts off, the animals are all chained to their pedestals, and ropes are put around their necks to choke them down and make them obey. All sorts of other brutalities are used to force animals to respect the trainer and learn their tricks. The animals work from fear.”

In the Ringling Bros. and other circuses, baby elephants are separated from their mothers in order to break their spirits; they are subsequently tied with ropes, and prodded with bullhooks and electro-shock devices to make them obey.

It is impossible to use positive reinforcement with purely wild animals like elephants, lions, bears and tigers. Violence is the only way to make wild animals perform unnatural tricks. Training sessions are comprised of beatings in order to establish superiority. Blackjacks, hooks, iron bars, whips and sticks are used to beat the pride out of animals. That’s why all circus trainers carry weapons like elephant hooks—which are pick-axe like devices—and whips for the lions, bears and tigers. In 1998, during a Shrine Circus protest in Detroit, a police officer even pulled out his gun and threatened to shoot me for displaying an elephant hook to passersby. The hooks and whips are weapons!

In the wilds of Africa and Asia, elephants walk 20 to 50 miles a day and take mud and dust baths as part of their natural behavior. However, elephants in the circus have their front, left legs and back, right legs chained up at all times when they are not on stage doing idiotic tricks. Not only can they not walk 20 to 50 miles a day, they can’t even take one step. For image reasons, some circuses have started keeping elephants behind electrical fences. But these areas are unsuitable for two pound toy poodles let alone 5,000 pound elephants.

Lions, bears and tigers fare no better. Circuses cage them like prisoners. The result of the constant confinement is sad. Most animals in the circus develop neurosis and exhibit neurotic behaviors. Elephants sway from side to side. Lions, bears and tigers pace back and forth in their cages and sometimes engage in self-mutilation.

Once again, this unfortunate BABY animal is hogtied and made to submit with the threat of being impaled by a bullhook. What sort of “humanitarian” drives a sharp implement through the skin of a defenseless baby?

The transportation process is ridiculous as well. Animals are shipped year-round from city to city in semi-trucks and railway cars. The semis and rail cars are without electricity, so every trip is in complete darkness, without air conditioning if it’s warm and without heat if it’s cold. Furthermore, if being chained up, caged up, dominated, humiliated and enslaved isn’t horrible enough, larger circuses—like The Shriners, Royal Hanneford and Ringling Bros.—deny animals sunlight when they perform in Midwestern arenas, even during the spring and summer months. These circuses perform for three to 21 days straight at The Michigan State Fairgrounds in Detroit and The Palace in Auburn Hills and keep animals in the warehouse area during their Michigan visits.

Vegan civil rights humanitarian Dick Gregory once said, “When I look at animals held captive by circuses, I think of slavery. Animals in circuses represent the domination and oppression we have fought against for so long. They wear the same chains and shackles.” This quotation is excerpted from an editorial written by Gregory, published in the Marin Independent Journal, April 28, 1998, and which appears just below this section.

And an undercover investigation of the Carson & Barnes Circus shows some of the most disturbing ‘training’ footage ever. The audio/video shows Tim Frisco, of the Carson & Barnes Circus, teaching future elephant trainers how to dominate elephants and make them submit. Frisco is caught on tape clearly saying, “Make him scream. Don’t touch him. Hurt him. If you’re scared to hurt him, don’t come in the barn. When I say rip his head off, rip his fucking foot off, it’s very important that you do it. When he starts squirming too fucking much, both fucking hands—BOOM (as he swings the hook like a baseball bat)—right under the chin! When he fucks around too much, you fucking sink that hook into him and give it everything you got. Sink that hook into him. When you hear that screaming, then you know you got their attention. Right here in the barn. You can’t do it on the road. I’m not going to touch her in front of a thousand people. She’s going to fucking do what I want and that’s just fucking the way it is. I am the boss. I will kick your fucking ass.” (Don’t take my word for it; this undercover footage appears at the end of the video at the top of this page.) Frisco and his two brothers learned the trade from their father, Joe Frisco, who spent a lifetime beating elephants for many circuses, including Ringling Bros.

Only support all-human circuses like Cirque Du Soleil and Cirque Ingenieux!

Artwork by Roger Olmos • Courtesy of Roger Olmos, FAADA (http://www.faada.org/) and Logos Edizioni

The Circus: It’s Modern Slavery

By Dick Gregory

When I worked as a civil rights activist with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., we sought justice through peaceful means. I was a participant in all of the “major” and most of the “minor” civil rights demonstrations of the early ’60s, including the March on Washington and the Selma to Montgomery March. Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to non-violence, and I was convinced that non-violence meant opposition to killing in any form.

I felt the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other—war, lynching, assassination, murder—but in their practice of killing animals for food and sport.

There are simple steps each of us can take to eliminate the exploitation of other beings. One is to refuse to go to any circus that uses animals. When I look at animals held captive by circuses, I think of slavery. Animals in circuses represent the domination and oppression we have fought against for so long. They wear the same chains and shackles. No matter what the circus folks tell us, there is no way to persuade an elephant to “dance” or a tiger to leap through hoops without some threat of punishment or violence. Big-cat trainers carry whips; elephant handlers use bullhooks—a sharp, hooked metal tool used to poke and jab sensitive spots. Behind the scenes, trainers often use electric stunning prods and heavy sticks to make their point.

This photo clearly shows the baby elephant's skin being punctured with a bullhook. If you didn't realize before how vicious and vile the circus industry is, you do now.

Circus animals may be fed regularly. They may even have a veterinarian to look after them. But this doesn’t make life easy for them. They are caged and shackled and forced to work when the boss says so. They never have even a taste of freedom, but go from cage to circus ring to cage. They travel thousands of miles during the performing season, which means long hours in boxcars or tractor trailers with no room to stretch, let alone run.

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey are two of the most famous and profitable circuses in the world. Even so, it has been cited for violating the Animal Welfare Act (the only federal law protecting animals in performing shows) more than 100 times.

This year already, two Ringling animals have died on the road. One was Kenny, a baby elephant forced to perform in two shows and appear in a third in one day even though he was ill. After the third show, he lay down and died. Kenny was only 3 years old and would have stayed with his mother in the wild for up to 15 years.

The other casualty was a tiger being used in a Ringling publicity photo shoot. When the tiger attacked one trainer, the other trainer on the scene returned the animal to his cage, got a gun and shot the big cat to death.

Both of these deaths could have been prevented, and not simply because the situations should have been handled better by those in charge. They were unnecessary because the animals should not have been imprisoned in the first place. As Alice Walker writes, “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.”

Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life. We don’t have to be a part of it.

Bolivia Bans Wild and Domestic Animals in Traveling Circuses

NOTE: As you read this story, please recognize that none of the changes in these or related laws would have been possible without the efforts of undercover agents taking part in DIRECT and ILLEGAL activity on behalf of animals.

LA PAZ, Bolivia, July 14, 2009 (ENS)—Bolivian President Evo Morales has signed the world’s first law prohibiting the use of both wild and domestic animals in traveling circuses.

This is the first national law to ban the use of both domestic and wild animals in circuses. To date, Croatia, Singapore, Austria, Israel and Costa Rica have all banned wild animals in circuses. Similar bans on animal use in traveling circuses in Costa Rica, Finland and Denmark only prohibit the use of wild animals or certain species.

The Bolivian law, signed earlier this month, was tabled by Congresswoman Ximena Flores of Potosi. It is expected to be published shortly.

The law arose as a result of evidence gathered during an undercover investigation by the nonprofit Animal Defenders International.

If this sort of animal abuse wasn't institutionalized by the circus industry—or if these cowards were caught doing this to a dog, or a human infant—they would be locked up in prison, not “gainfully employed” by an entertainment enterprise.

Investigators found lions confined in a tiny cage on the back of a truck—two were pregnant but were forced to continue to perform. ADI videos show circus employees beating a lion in the circus ring with a baton and beating a caged lion with a metal pan. In one video, a caged lion was jerked by a chain around its neck by circus workers outside the cage, causing visible pain.

Three brown bears were kept in tiny compartments measuring just 2.5 × 3 meters (8.2 × 9.8 feet) inside a cage on the back of a truck. Their only exercise was the walk to and from the ring for their short performance. There were no safety barriers to protect the audience as the animals were made to dance, play dead and ride a bicycle.

Other ADI videos showed circus employees beating a wolf and a llama in the circus ring.

The findings of the investigation were presented to the Bolivian Congress together with a report from Animal Defenders International on the scientific evidence of suffering of animals in traveling circuses, The Science on Suffering.

The new law bans the use of wild and domestic animals in circuses in the Bolivia, as their conditions and confinement are considered acts of cruelty.

The circuses will be allowed one year to adapt their shows to a humans-only program and during this time, the government will issue regulations on confiscation and monetary sanctions for any breaches of the law.

ADI Chief Executive Jan Creamer said, “This is a truly historic day for circus animals. The undercover investigations, the scientific research and the hard work of our supporters in Bolivia have made a difference for animals that will reach around the world.”

“Bolivia is the first country to ban animal circuses in South America and the first worldwide to ban both domestic and wild animals in circuses,” said Creamer. “We applaud President Evo Morales for setting the highest standard for animal protection for South America, which the rest of the world now needs to follow. We also salute the efforts of Congresswoman Flores and all the local organizations and who along with ADI worked tirelessly to ensure that the bill became a law.”

Groups in Bolivia that worked alongside ADI on the campaign for the new legislation include: Focomade, Vida Silvestre, Biosfera, Codac, Zooprama, Anima Naturalis-Bolivia, Gaia Pacha, EBA-Bolivia, and Animales SOS, among others.

The photographs of the abused baby elephant are courtesy of Occupy for Animals. Please read the tooltip for each one . . . and vow that you will never take your children to an animal circus again!


Say no to circuses and visit www.adaptt.org for more.

Here’s What’s Wrong with Zoos


Here’s What’s Wrong with Zoos

The stress of captivity, and the lethargy induced by confinement, often lead to neurotic behaviors such as pacing and self-mutilation.


Quote of the Moment“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”~ John F. Kennedy, in a speech at the White House, 1962.



1) Zoos are animal prisons. No more euphemisms!

2) When people say, “But zoos save endangered animals,” the truth is, 99 percent of all the animals at the zoo are UNENDANGERED. If zoos were only saving endangered animals, no one would complain. But zoos are a business. In fact, zoos are usually the number-one tourist attraction in every state.

3) No matter how “natural” they make the animals’ caged-in areas, once zoos RE-CREATE an area, it is NOW artificial and UNNATURAL. No amount of architecture can RE-CREATE a NATURAL habitat of old-growth forests, fallen branches, plant species and other animal species—least of all, a habitat providing adequate room for the animals to roam.

4) When people say, “But the zoo is so educational for children, they learn so much,” the truth is, “The only thing kids learn at the zoo is that giraffes have long necks, zebras are black and white and the monkeys have pink butts! PERIOD!” There is NO education taking place in zoos except the cruel indoctrination of misguided values into children, telling them that it is okay to dominate and enslave animals and put them on display for amusement, entertainment and follies. It is much more educational to read the research of primatologist Dian Fossey, or that of others who’ve actually studied animals in their natural habitats and truly learned about their natural behaviors. Or one can learn about animals from documentaries, such as Planet Earth. But one cannot learn about animals who are in UNNATURAL habitats displaying UNNATURAL behaviors from the stress of confinement and lethargy of captivity, which can also lead to neurotic behaviors like pacing and self-mutilation.

5) Zoos are created for PEOPLE, not animals. Take the Detroit Zoo and look at all the space for picnics and the refreshment areas and the trolley/train. Meanwhile, the animals are being driven insane in their TINY enclosures.

6) If zoos really cared about animals, then why do they serve DEAD animals at the refreshment areas? Seems to me that if the zoo was trying to teach kindness and respect for animals, the least they could do is make sure people aren’t eating dead ones in a bun. The zoo would be an ideal place for vegan food—if it weren’t otherwise abusing the animals whom it puts on display rather than serving up as edible commodities!

7) When people say, “But animals are being poached in the wild and they live longer lives in captivity,” the truth is, “a life doesn’t magically become happier just because it’s longer!” (In fact, the truth about life spans is actually the reverse for larger species such as elephants, dolphins and orcas.) And poaching can be solved if we crack down on poaching, make hunting illegal ― since poachers are hunters and that’s where they learned the bloodsport of killing animals with guns and arrows ― as well as protect animal habitat and start sharing this planet with our four-legged companions. The solution to poaching is NOT removing animals from their land; it is removing poachers from the land. It is also done through teaching people about the vegan lifestyle. If people were vegans, there wouldn’t be a need for ivory, seal penises (aphrodisiacs) and whale blubber. It always comes back to veganism. If natural habitat is being demolished through sprawl, the solution is to STOP destroying natural habitat, not removing animals from their natural places of freedom and putting them into cages and other enclosures.

8) Zoos should be transformed into sanctuaries. And that means no more visitors. No more picnic areas. No more huge walkways. No more refreshment areas. Let these animals live out their lives by giving them EVERY INCH of space on the grounds and then build ONE virtual reality auditorium where people can come and take a virtual ride through the jungles of Tanzania or the wastelands of Asia.

9) Nearly every zoo sells its “surplus” animals to canned hunting farms or research labs or circuses. And most zoos have circus acts where animals perform asinine tricks in mini arenas. “Surplus” animals are the older animals whom no one wants to gawk at any longer. The reason there are breeding programs at zoos is to make sure there are always baby animals in order to attract a bigger crowd. No one wants to see old elephants or old zebras but EVERYBODY wants to see baby elephants and baby zebras. In defense of the Detroit Zoo and Ron Kagan, Ron changed these practices at the Detroit Zoo. The Detroit Zoo no longer has animal acts or sells any animals to hunting farms, labs or circuses. Kagan is without a doubt the most progressive zoo director on this planet. In May of 2004, Kagan even agreed to release the elephants at the Detroit Zoo to an elephant sanctuary.

10) Without freedom there is no reason to exist! Zoos have taken away the animals’ freedom and made them living skeletons. The pride is gone. The will to thrive has vanished. The feeling of happiness faded. The thrill of endless miles of roaming has been usurped. Every thing that is natural to an animal, has been made UNNATURAL by the state-sanctioned animal prison system that operates for one reason and one reason alone: the almighty dollar.

11) People love to talk about animals at the zoo having veterinary care, as if that justifies their imprisonment. Prisoners have medical care, but that doesn’t make people want to line up and book vacations to federal penitentiaries! Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay also have medical care, but I don’t think people are planning Christmas vacations to this Cuban facility. Of course animals at zoos have vet care. Without a “product” to put on display, one cannot make a profit. Animals are fed and watered and receive medical treatment. Still they have no freedom, and no forests. For more information on imprisoned animals, check out Canada’s Zoo Check organization. As for marine zoos, such as SeaWorld and Busch Gardens, watch stand-up comic Doug Stanhope sarcastically and truthfully explain the psychosis of aqua-prisons, or check out the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organizations website.

Once again, THANK YOU Gary Yourosfky for this lovely piece. For all animal rights issue please visit www.adaptt.org

Animal Intelligence


Animal Intelligence

“It is just like man’s vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.”  •  Mark Twain


Quote of the Moment“Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”~ Elie Wiesel, concentration camp survivor.



Human babies are, without a doubt, some of the stupidest and most helpless of all beings. Yet no one other than a complete psychopath would agree that babies should be enslaved, murdered, or set on fire as routinely happens to dogs and pigs in modern-day-medieval burn experiments. When pain, suffering, and emotions are taken into consideration, all animals—humans, four-leggeds, birds, snakes, fish and other aquatic creatures, amphibians and insects alike—are equal. Therefore, it should be our goal as a society to reduce and eliminate the intentional pain and suffering we inflict upon innocent beings.

It’s just dumbfounding that many of those who would grant rights to human babies in an instant won’t even begin to concede the rights of other beings that are, by most accounts, far more intelligent than a human infant. Fortunately, Rene Descartes’ idiocy about animals operating like unthinking machines has been exposed a long time ago (his idea holds true for plants, not animals). All animals, from insects to whales, are rational, aware, self-aware, intelligent beings. They experience an array of emotions, especially pain and happiness. In fact, in 2015, Japan’s Kwansei Gakuin University released a study showing rats displaying pure altruism (more proof of animal altruism can be seen in the 4th to last paragraph below) by saving their friends from drowning. Too bad these irrational, unaware, vile researchers didn’t have the intelligence to realize that they shouldn’t be drowning rats in the first place.

If you’re a social justice historian, you might recall all the idiotic discussions about the rationality and intelligence of certain humans, too. Almost invariably, these discussions arise whenever certain groups of oppressed humans (e.g., African slaves in the antebellum American Deep South, or natives of India who were subjected to British colonial rule in the 19th and early 20th centuries) claim freedom from their oppressors, as well as equality to their oppressors. The reaction of victimizers and oppressors is always to deny that their victims suffer, feel pain or are intelligent. This allows enslavement and murder to happen nonchalantly and guilt-free. The victimizers’ mind-set goes like this: “You don’t count because you’re stupid. You don’t matter because you’re dumb. I laugh at your suffering. I’ll kill you when I want to. I’ll sell you and your family. You’re worthless. You don’t think the way I do. Prove to me why I should be kind to you. Prove to me that you deserve to be free.” So even though victims always look and act differently from one another (bees, lobsters, cows, pigs, blacks, women, Christians, Muslims, Jews, witches, Gypsies, Rwandans, etc.), they’ve suffered equally because of the victimizers’ mind-set. It may be objected that while nonhuman animals clearly want to be free from enslavement and torment by their human oppressors, these animals cannot lay claim to their rights and freedoms as humans can. But this does not mean that those claims are never legitimate. Remember, even the rights of human infants (e.g., the right not to be subjected to burn experiments in a laboratory) can be represented by a proxy (such as an attorney) in a court of law.

Here are five examples that demonstrate the intelligence of animals. I could offer more but I don’t believe in writing tomes about the obvious.

1) I once saw a Discovery channel show about ants. There was a flood. A few hundred ants carefully, methodically and rationally LOCKED LEGS to form a raft. Then, a few others escorted the queen ant to the top of the raft. The ant raft eventually floated to safety, killing all the raft ants, but SAVING the queen thus preserving the survival of the colony. Not only is this rational thought, it is ALTRUISM at its finest, something few humans are capable of.

Ants, bees and the rest of the insect world are some of the most intelligent beings on the planet. Step on an ant near the colony, and watch the whole ant community go ballistic. They know when they’re under attack. They easily TRY to avoid pain and death.

2) When I was volunteering at SASHA Farm sanctuary in 2004, four of us went into the woods to throw out some old rotten hay. I accidentally stepped on a hornets’ nest as they often construct their hives on the ground. The hornets carefully, methodically and rationally attacked me and NOT the three folks who were with me. I had 12 bites methodically on my body; two on my head (one on each side); six across my chest and abdomen (three on each side); two on my thighs (one on each leg); two on my shins (one on each leg). They were clearly trying to immobilize me. While my three companions frantically smashed the hornets off of me (self-defense is always a valid excuse to kill anyone), the hornets buzzed off momentarily and then re-attacked me several times. They NEVER once went after the people who were swatting and trying to kill them because they knew I stepped on their home, not my three companions.

3) I am terrified of spiders. There was a huge spider in my apartment last summer. When I turned and saw him on the wall, I screamed in horror. The spider jumped in fear. His feet actually left the wall for a second. He ran around WILDLY in a circle for 30 seconds until he dove off the wall and found a hiding space in the corner. Why do you think he jumped and ran frantically? Spiders know what happens after a human screams. They get smashed to smithereens. This 8-legged critter didn’t realize how lucky he was to be in a vegan household. He didn’t receive the usual violent ending. I captured him in a glass and released him outside. You should do the same with ALL spiders and insects.

4) In 2008, when I was in El Paso, Texas lecturing at UTEP, I took a wrong turn and missed the I-10 Freeway. Thank goodness for small mistakes. I noticed a pigeon circling at the edge of the road. I blocked the lane for his protection and exited my vehicle. He was mourning his dead partner who had been smashed by a car. Clearly, he was heartbroken. I let him circle his dead friend for a minute to say goodbye then bent over and picked him up. He was so despondent that he didn’t even try to fly away. I took him to a bird-rehabber to make sure he was okay, and the rehabber told me that pigeons usually mate for life. When one dies, the other one doesn’t fare too well, often dying from a broken heart shortly after. Being able to form a relationship proves that thoughts are being processed, and emotional intellect is at play. Grieving, mourning and despair—which ALL animals are capable of—are not instinctive, thoughtless moments. Intellect includes responding properly to emotional situations. Breathing is instinctive. Grieving is not!

5) In 2011, when I was in Monterey, California lecturing at Cal State University, a friend who works for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took me hiking near the bay. He knew I wanted to see some otters, so within 30 minutes we were at a spot with a built-in telescope viewer so I could see one in action. It was beautiful to see him floating on his back, relaxing in the wavy waters and west-coast sunshine. As I peered through the viewer, I noticed that he wasn’t floating away even though there was an endless streak of powerful waves. I asked my friend how the otter was staying in one place. He explained how they take 25- to 50-foot strands of seaweed that stretch up from the ocean’s floor, and twist them several times around their bodies to form an anchor. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I looked closely at the otter’s waist area. Sure enough, these multi-talented marine critters were not only expert divers and swimmers, they were the ocean’s best tool-makers! Being able to utilize long strands of seaweed proves—once again—that animals are capable of rational, logical thought. Not only do otters have to find something to help them stay in one place, they have to figure out how to use it and also determine that one twist around their bodies isn’t sufficient for the task at hand. It takes at least three or four twists. Animals undoubtedly possess the same problem-solving intellect that many humans believe is exclusive to their species.

For some other amazing acts of altruism, awareness, emotion and intellect, proving that animal behavior is not instinctive, watch the following clips:

Moreover, This March 2008 article in The Independent, a British news site, tells the story of a dolphin helping a beached whale and her calf find their way back to the sea. This January 2011 article in The New York Times tells the story of Chaser, a border collie who possesses a vocabulary of over 1,000 words. This December 2011 article in People Magazine online recounts the story of a dog who rescued some kittens who were stuffed in a cat-food bag and left to die on a roadside. And veterinarian Holly Cheever tells the most amazing story of a mother cow hiding one of her newborn twins from the psychotic owner of a dairy facility!

If you’re still wavering about the intelligence of animals, re-examine the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that struck the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, and devastated Sri Lanka and many other nations. More than 200,000 humans died while animal corpses were nearly impossible to locate. If they weren’t caged up, animals took off before the disaster struck. Ravi Corea of the Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society told Fox News, “There have been no reports of elephant carcasses, deer, leopards, black bears, sloth bears.” Fox also reported that Corea “drove through towns like Galle, which are full of stray animals, and ‘didn’t see any dead cows or goats.’ ” There’s no doubt that surviving animals were thinking: “With all your mathematical skills, extensive language and technology, you two-legged imbeciles didn’t know there was a 100-foot wave coming? Idiots!” And the animals weren’t being instinctive when they fled the scene before the tsunami hit. They were simply paying attention. They were aware of their surroundings, unlike the instinctive human robots who stroll this earth. When it comes to technology, humans are brilliant. When it comes to awareness, humans have the mental acuity of a dingleberry (dried piece of shit stuck to the hair surrounding an asshole). And when it comes to decency, humans are on par with viruses.

If animals and insects aren’t aware, then what are they? If they are NOT capable of feeling pain, then what do they feel? Eating, sleeping, drinking, surviving, procreating, looking for shelter, building a home, defending themselves and saving each other aren’t instinctual behaviors. They are thoughts attached to actions. It’s the human animal who operates instinctively. Very few people think for themselves and come to rational conclusions. Pulling into McDonald’s for a Big Mac is NOT rational thought. It happens because the media, the government, schools and parents tell people to do it. If humans were rational, we wouldn’t be killing the animals, the earth and ourselves!


The Insipid “Burning Building” Question


The Insipid “Burning Building” Question

Meat, dairy and egg-eaters disingenuously invoke these hypothetical situations only when the scenario involves species other than their own.


Quote of the Moment“Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life. We don’t have to be a part of it.”~ Dick Gregory.



Animal rights people are often asked whether a firefighter should save a dog or a child from a burning building. (Sometimes this question is framed as a drowning scenario. Should someone rescue a drowning dog or a drowning child?) Although this question is juvenile, discriminatory, and completely irrelevant to an animal’s inherent right NOT to be tortured, abused, enslaved, commodified and murdered by humans, I express all of my beliefs unabashedly on this website. So I will answer the “burning building” question in two different ways.

1) I would want firefighters to save whoever is nearest to the point of entry. Whichever creature puts the firefighter in the LEAST amount of danger is the one who should be saved. If firefighters want to be bigger heroes, they can try to save both, especially if the beings in question were next to each other. Firefighters are strong and can carry BOTH to safety. They could shove the dog down their shirt and carry the kid. Or they could shove the kid down their shirt and carry the dog. They could drape either one over their shoulders and carry the other.

2) Since animals and humans suffer in the same way, especially when it comes to being burnt alive, I find it outrageous that people even pose this question. How come scenarios like this only arise when animals are involved? The thought of animals being treated equally with humans turns seemingly rational people into illogical, irrational hillbillies. The latter reference to hillbillies opens up a litany of other scenarios and questions that need to be addressed, too. If Dick Cheney and Barack Obama (war criminals) and a child were caught in a burning house, who should be saved? If Jeffrey Dahmer and a maggot were caught in a burning house, who should be saved? If Jerry Sandusky, Pennsylvania child molester, and a flea on the back of a tick on the back of a fly were caught in a burning house, who should be saved? When you cogitate about whether homosexuals deserve equal rights (and they undoubtedly do), do you wonder whether a firefighter should rescue a gay man or a heterosexual man from a burning house? Fifty years ago, would you have pondered whether a firefighter should rescue a black person or a white person caught in a burning house? Should a Christian firefighter rescue a Muslim man or a Christian woman? Should a Christian firefighter rescue a Buddhist or a Jew? Should women be rescued instead of men? Should Hitler or Stalin be rescued at all? Should a rapist be rescued instead of a child molester? Should someone from Monterey be rescued over someone from El Paso? Should Mexicans be rescued instead of Polish folk? Should O.J. Simpson be rescued instead of Michael Richards? Should Michael Vick be rescued over a flea? Over a mosquito?

MY ANSWERS TO THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS ARE: Child over Cheney and Obama; Maggot over Dahmer; Flea on back of tick on back of fly over Sandusky the child molester; Wouldn’t choose between gay man or heterosexual man (whoever is closest to point of entry); Wouldn’t choose between black or white (whoever is closest to point of entry); Wouldn’t choose between Muslim or Christian, or Buddhist or Jew, or man or woman (whoever is closest to point of entry); Would let Hitler and Stalin burn to death intentionally; Would let child molester and rapist burn to death intentionally; Wouldn’t choose between person from Monterey or El Paso (whoever is closest to point of entry); Wouldn’t choose between Mexican or Polish (whoever is closest to point of entry); Would save Richards because his crime only caused hurt feelings while O.J.’s crimes were physically and extraordinarily violent; Would save flea over Vick; Would save mosquito over Vick.

The Insipid “Prayer Vindicates Killing” Argument


The Insipid “Prayer Vindicates Killing” Argument

No one is exonerated from the crime of murdering an animal by praying over the animal’s body


Quote of the Moment“Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places!”~ Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)


Native American Indians of the Columbia Plateau on horses in front of tipis, 1908 • Photo by Benjamin A. Gifford • Public-domain photo from Wikimedia Commons • https://commons.wikimedia.org


Vegans often hear comments about some meat-eating Native Americans having a harmonious relationship with nature. However, eating animal products and harmony have about as much in common as Michael Vick and companion animal care.

Fortunately, according to Native American historian Rita Laws, the majority of Natives ate very little to no meat before whites invaded America. Choctaw, Mayan, Osage, Aztec, Pawnee, Zapotec, Mandans, Wichitas, Arikaras, Caddoans, Cherokee, Creek and Chicksaw lived largely vegan lifestyles. After all, Natives taught thievish Europeans how to crop the land that was eventually stolen from them, not how to kill animals.

Natives only began to hunt en masse after cattle-ranching cowboys displaced them from their land. Millions of Natives were murdered because cowboys needed Native land for cow-grazing so white people could have plenty of beef. What whites did to Native Americans is a perfect reason to become vegan, not to pick up a bow and arrow and kill an innocent creature.

Furthermore, horrifying stories of Lame Deer or Chief Seattle praying over murdered animals display a primitive understanding of compassion and decency. Praying over a murdered animal does not exonerate the killer from the crime. Many Natives (and others) refuse to accept this fact because they too eat animal products. They would rather blindly defend their people instead of acknowledging the occasional wrongful acts of their ancestors. There is no honor in defending cruelty. I was born Jewish and won’t hesitate to condemn rich, pretentious Jewish women who own fur coats because they stupidly believe it’s a status symbol. Compassion and decency are far more valuable than heritage.


Giving thanks to Gary Yourofsky for his work on www.adaptt.org from which this information is sourced.