The ALF Strikes in Iowa! 401 Animals Rescued! Labs Smashed!

The continuation of vivisection is maintained only insofar as it remains outside public sight and scrutiny. The ongoing research uncovered at UI's Psych Dept. is of such a sadistic nature as to be inexcusable by all but the sickest minds. UI code requires all animals be kept behind locked doors of windowless rooms, and most often on floors locked to the public. UI has also tagged this raid as mere vandalism and denied an animal liberation motive despite numerous slogans left painted at the site, all to divert attention from it's animal research. We confiscated paperwork from UI's 7 primary researchers to give the public a glimpse into the sickness kept from their eyes:

Prof. Freeman: Drills holes into the skulls of rats and affixes head implants in neurology experiments involving "electrical brain stimulation". Rats removed from his lab were grossly disfigured by surgically implanted devices on the skull.

All animals in his lab were rescued.

Johnson: Exposes rats to a series of "chronic stressors" including loud noise and strobe lights for the aim of "experimentally induced depression". Also performs experiments involving the withholding of water from rats.

All animals in his lab were rescued.

Blumburg: Currently subjects infant rats to prolonged cold exposure. Famously deranged mind on record as stating the cries of animals in labs are an automatic response and convey no more emotion than a sneeze.

All animals in his lab were rescued.

Poremba: Currently confines 8 rhesus monkeys in the NE corner of the Psych building's 4th floor, subjecting them to numerous stressors including reward/punishment experiments. Places primates in a "behavioral conditioning box", also known as a "shock box", where primates are subjected to shock experiments. Inside her office we found pieces of primate brain encased in glass and blueprints to the building.

Rodefer: Addicts primates and rats to cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP in redundant drug experiments. His drug possession license filed with the DEA stipulates the drugs be kept in a locked safe in the building's basement. However 2 stashes of narcotics were found in his 4th floor office, including the inside pocket of a jacket, suggesting he is himself addicted to the drugs he has for years forced on animals.

OK, here's one. I'll phrase it as a question, so as to ascertain whether asking the "wrong" questions are also forbidden here.

Question:

How does giving these people a soapbox differ from giving a soapbox to abortion clinic bombers?

that's your question -- you ask it on almost every thread here -- and there is no obligation on the part of anyone to answer it. apparently, you think you've got a real stumper...

I'm game, though, but I've got questions for you, too

answer me these: how down are you for the other categories here at Indybay because you come off like a Freeper or libertarian who would also be against strikes and labor laws etc.? and, if you are not a Freeper et al, why couldn't you make the same exact arguements you use against animal rights activists with those other categories, such as using photos of war victims, trying to "shut down" the WTO, or trashing a Starbucks, because you usually just seem to talking about tactics? finally, is your endgame the abolition of all anti-cruelty laws so that people can be free to do with animals whatever they want in their own homes, not to mention institutionally, with no commonly agreed upon standards whatsoever?

I'll go first answering and hope you play fair

animal rights activists are different from the anti-abortionists in that the first seeks to minimize, and ultimately eliminate, the exploitation of one separate being against another separate being, emphasizing respect for both entities to live their lives without harm or exploitation, which is is entirely possible to do, while the second wants to give primacy to the fetus over the rights of the woman when they both share the same body, thereby making the woman a second-class citizen to her own unborn offspring. also, note, tactic-wise, that while ALF talks up a storm to make their property destruction more dramatic, they, like the ELF, do not think it is okay to directly harm another human in their actions, in achieving their goals, whereas many within the anti-abortion camp think it's perfectly acceptable to shoot a doctor or blow up a clinic with people in it because the fetus is the most valuable thing, more valuable than an adult woman

I answered yours -- you're free to disagree, but I probably won't revisit this as I already given you the satisfaction of answering your burning question.

now what about my questions?

...though i've been known to ask you some of them before. therefore, to return your goodwill gesture, i'll give it a go:

"answer me these: how down are you for the other categories here at Indybay because you come off like a Freeper or libertarian who would also be against strikes and labor laws etc.?"

at least as much as many other people here are. what i object to is your selective standards, whereby people you perceive to be "on side" are held to different standards than those perceived not to be. ultimately, you just don't know, and that's what drives you wild. you'd answer a perceived ideological ally differently than you would a perceived ideological enemy. that makes the whole movement weak, because it bars the way to people changing their mind, and also to the best arguments (let alone the truth) emerging-- at least as the western-liberal tradition understands the ideas of open debate among free people.

why, i've even suggested a new category, but it was rejected because it was perceived as a ruse. (antifascism, for the record.) as an aside, i find the current far-left's lazziez-faire attitude to the real far-right, really disturbing and dangerous. does that make me a freeper or a libertarian?

"and, if you are not a Freeper et al"

for the record i'm not. do you want to make me one?

"why couldn't you make the same exact arguements you use against animal rights activists with those other categories, such as using photos of war victims, trying to "shut down" the WTO, or trashing a Starbucks, because you usually just seem to talking about tactics?"

well, tactics matter, if their goals really do. ultimately, i *am* questioning both the tactics and rhetoric of the "movement(s)" today. you seem to need reassurance that i share many of the same fundamentally peace-and-freedom kinds of values you do before you'll take my critical intervention in knee-jerk-reactive tactics (as damaging to the whole movement) seriously and, for the record, you have that assurance.

now, why do i have to keep making you feel better before you'll take a question seriously? and, is there not (at least the indication of or potential for) a flaw in that situation? (that's a rhetorical question. please, do consider it, and its implications.)

"finally, is your endgame the abolition of all anti-cruelty laws so that people can be free to do with animals whatever they want in their own homes, not to mention institutionally, with no commonly agreed upon standards whatsoever?"

my endgame is global survival and human freedom, more or less in that order, as the latter requires the former. i will admit to a bit of a humanist bias, but it's one that recognizes the human connection to everything else that lives, and a certain responsibility, given our achievements and our collective immaturity. that said, i dont think ends justify means, but rather the former are created by the latter. i'm deeply suspicious, probably as a more or less unwilling american, of the human animal's ability to rationalize the garden path to evil, telling ourselves that our "endgame" of good justifies it. should i not be? (again, rhetorical. please, read on, if you will.)

now, i didn't specifically ask the questions you hate so much, this time, though as i said i've been known to. if you will humor me, i think we might have hit on a way to have a very important discussion among ourselves (believe it or not). so i beg your indulgence for a question of my own:

why are self-professed radicals (and our "movements") so unwilling to question their own orthodoxies, and why are those who do routinely isolated and driven out of the community as if they were a threat? it strikes me as revealing a positively medievalistic mentality of "us and them," good and evil. is this an effect of decades of irrelevance and ineffectiveness on the part of the american left (loosely and ecumenically speaking), or a cause of same? more fundamentally, how is it different from our basic critique of "democracy" as the idea is implemented in mass culture today? doesn't that rather make us hypocrites?

sorry, i guess that's more than one question-- they're sort of all tangled up, due to long neglect i'd guess. i'd be happy, if you answered the first, to merely wonder the others aloud.

or go for it. i wonder sincerely, for whatever that's worth.

"that's your question -- and there is no obligation on the part of anyone to answer it."

so, you're just like "the Man" when it comes to difficult questions, and in the part of the world where you do have some control, this is your formal attitude.

then, how would a world where you had social decision-making power be any different than what we have now?

except that the people in power now are more or less predictable because of their entrenched position, and revolutionary situations are inherently unstable, thus unpredictable, and thus difficult for many kinds of people to survive. (people like troublemakers, for example. any of those aorund here?)

"that's your question -- you ask it on almost every thread here" ... "how down are you for the other categories here at Indybay[?]"

so is having the same questions of different aspects of the "movement" a sign of good or ill intent?

your own framing of the question seems contradictory on its face, because you first use the multi-issue thing as a sign of ill intent and then as a measure of commitment -- as if you yourself aren't clear on the point you're trying to make.

is because the question is unanswerable. All of your replies shift away from it, and when brought back to it again on your own terms, you fall silent.

Maybe this is because this is all a game to you, and you're not really mature enough to be serious about the things you espouse. You're still living in a high school world of cliques and pretense.

Just maybe.

was Gandhi a misanthrope or a psychopath? explain...


who are you talking to anyway? yourself? or are you trying to rally the masses to murder the vegetarians in the war to end all wars?

your theatrics speak volumes about your mental diagnoses, but without you paying me, I ain't gonna tell you what it is

as is typical

yeah, freeing the Indians from Brit rule, non-violently even, was pretty foolish. is everyone who has been assassinated automatically a fool in your mind? (that's rhetorical unless you want to answer after the first question)

think a bit more before you answer the previous question this time

was Gandhi a misanthrope or pyschopath (as you so armchair diagnosed in your self-assumed psychological onmipotence)? you threw threw that out there against anyone who is interested in the welfare of animals and I offered Gandi as a test of your simplistic belief system

back up your childish put-downs with some thought this time -- take all the time you want

finally, note that you calling someone else a fool doesn't make you any less of one, and, psychologically speaking, it bespeaks of a serious lack of self-esteem in constantly attempting to demean others by calling names in a vain attempt to raise yourself up. narcissism is also a sign of low self esteem -- it's actually just a mask or front. look it up for yourself

fighting an inanimate object.

here's hoping that "history bluff" gets the help he's crying out for.

[In their accounts of the affair, the powers that be (and not just in Britain) greatly exaggerate the role of non violent resistance because they want the rest of us to believe that non violence is our only, or at least our best, option. Nothing could be further from the truth. I call Ghandi a fool, not because he practiced non violence, but because he fetishized it. Nonviolence is only a tactic. Sometimes it is the best tactic available. Other times it is not. It is never the best strategy. The best strategy, in any situation, *always* involves maintaining tactical flexibility. When non violence works, use non violence. It’s cheaper. When non violence fails, kick some butt. History is very clear on this. read history. Learn what it has to teach us.]

proponents of non-violence in all circumstances seem to ignore, as noted here, that there have been situations in history in which non-violence was incapable of overcoming oppression

for example, until the 20th Century, non-violence was implausible as a means of confronting Western European and American imperialism, as the US, France, Germany, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands and others did not hesitate to use violence, sometimes overwhelming violence involving mass slaughter to impose their authority

in the absence of modern communications technology, and a domestic constituency that was generally willing to accept the application of brutal force to suppress the faraway "natives", the idea of non-violence as a form of resistance would have been suicidal

even in the 20th Century, it is hard to imagine the US leaving Vietnam, or the French leaving Algeria, if they had only faced a non-violent resistance

likewise, the prospect of non-violence overcoming the
Chinese Communist Party during the Cultural Revolution, or at any time before, perhaps, the 1990s, is equally incomprehensible, people who resisted non-violently were killed, imprisoned and exiled

and, then there is the question of the retrograde use of non-violence to prevent people from resisting an occupation imposed by violence, say, as in Iraq

the US, the British and others attacked Iraq with modern military technology, and continue to use it to occupy the country, killing tens of thousands of people, most recently in Falluja

given this context, wouldn't an insistence upon the need for any resistance to be non-violent amount to permitting the conquerors to receive the spoils that they fraudulently and violently obtained, at least for a lengthy period of time?

not to mention the violence that they inflict upon the populace daily

seems to me, that the effort to promote non-violence as the only effective means of resisting oppression is a bridge too far, as it is not validated by history

but, sadly, one of the tragedies, as reflected in Algeria, is that people who prevail through a violent resistance may be more prone to thereafter govern with violence, which is the contemporary, unanticipated message of a film like "The Battle of Algiers" from the 1960s, given that we know what transpired afterwards and the filmmakers couldn't

in my case, I believe that people like Martin Luther King and others have made a strong moral case for non-violence, but those of us who accept it should candidly acknowledge that it may fail in many instances, and that we choose such a course for moral reasons, not practical ones, and we should be very careful before assuming a pose of superiority over those who reach a contrary conclusion

otherwise, we do run the risk of "fetishizing" non-violence, and placing people in danger without a realistic understanding of the risk, the purpose of the activity and their prospects for success

--Richard Estes

it was just an aside that to a point that Gandi, a vegetarian opposed to animal testing, who must be a misanthropic psychopath by some people's twisted logic, accomplished a lot FOR PEOPLE, and the icing on that cake was that it was largely non-violent civil disobedience that wore down the British masters (yes, it was not the only factor as the Brits had WWII on their hands, etc, but if Indians had continued to go along it would have been a lot easier for Brits to continue their rule)

it was merely to make the point that caring for humans and caring for people are not mutually exclusive as some oversimplistically try to make it seem

on the points about violence, though, I would add the fall of the USSR to the great mostly non-violent revolutions of recent times. doesn't mean non-violence is the only way for every situation, but it does show that not everything in this world is accomplished by violence or might-makes-right. raw numbers of dissenters, an independent press, labor unions, and massive strikes and civil disobedience can go a long way. and just because something is hard to imagine, doesn't mean it would have (or would be) impossible.

From reading Nehru's history of India I didnt really get the same picture of Ghandi as one hears from those debating violence vs nonviolence. I have to relook up the quote but Im pretty sure Nehru even mentioned Ghandi's questioning of nonviolence tactics at several points. The main thing that stuck me about how Nehru saw Ghandi was that it was that the force that allowed him to push out the British was as much his role as the Indian equivalent of Khomeini. Unlike the more socialist leaders of the country who appealed mainly to educated academics, Ghandi used nonviolence (and a lot of elements of Jainism) to become an iconic symbol and was almost seen as an avatar. Ghandi's strength was much like that of Khomeini, in that it didnt stem from milittary power or strategic thought by relied on playing into local mythologies. Could an Indian leader have played into less nonviolent aspects of Hindu mythologies and used those to gain a similar level of power to Ghandi?

On matters of meat eating vs not meat eating, much of the above debate makes little sense. Most of the world doesnt eat much meat and most of the world is basically vegitarian because they cant afford meat products (since much more energy goes into producing meat than vegitable products). Debating the right to eat Foie Gras as a political issue is like debating buying diamonds as a political issue; while its easy to see why someone might be upset over the treatment of animals in making Foie Gras ( or war in the case of diamonds) its hard to have sympathy for someone so concerned over a product that can only be consumed by the richest of the rich. One only has a right to have diamonds, Rolls Royces, or Foie Gras to the extent one has a right to be wealthy while most of the world starves.

This is simply untrue. Much more energy goes into producing meat than vegetable products only if the meat is raised in the modern American way. Traditional methods are very efficient. Meat can be raised on land where it is simply not practical to raise anything else. Sheep and goats can graze comfortable on slopes so steep that humans have to work hard just to stand upright without falling over. Hogs are a particularly efficient means to recycle garbage. Then there’s Chinese weeder geese. Or perhaps you'd prefer to see their work done by stooped over peasants with short hoes?

Even on good land, the raising of meat in the traditional field rotation manner actually produces cheaper, healthier vegetables and grains by providing natural, organic fertilizer.

Meat eating is not a problem, not for the economy, not for the environment and not for your health. The problem is that some of it raised in an unhealthy manner and that some people consume it in unhealthy quantities. That’s a problem. Meat eating itself is not.

funny, that in a comment about getting facts straight the author uses hypotheticals to make his/her point -- meat is largely not produced in a "traditional" way in this country, and in only a tiny percentage does it come anywhere close. virtually all meat is raised modern factory farm methods these days -- modern economics demands it. The meat that 99% of Americans eat is a wasteful use of resources. Now, some might argue they think it tastes good or it's somehow Natural in their spiritual understanding of the world and the Nature of humankind, and that allows them to overlook or simply accept the environmental damage it causes, but there's not denying the wastefulness in America (and most Western countries) today.

it reminds me of so many birkenstock hippy-types with their suede fringe jackets thinking that that are living like Native Americans, being natural and all, into leather and whatnot, without even realizing that Native Americans produced their own leather from scratch, from animals they themselves hunted, in a sustainable fashion while the hippy-drippies merely pick it up at the shopping mall after it was raised on a factory farm. they completely disassociate from the real world but are oh so self-satisfied about their deluded connection to it.

>meat is largely not produced in a "traditional" way in this country

I never said it was. Why do you feel that you have to make stuff to debate me. Couldn't you just tell the truth once in a while, and address what I actually say?

> this country

This country is six percent of humanity. If that's all you care about, you're wearing nationalist blinders. They give you tunnel vision. Wise up. Take them off. See this world for what it is, a planet. There’s a lot of us live here. Most aren’t American. Even fewer are you.

because some third world person farms goats on a hill

it's like the person who argues for eating meat here in America by noting that the indigenous peoples of the far north subside on a meat-only diet

or the hippy who wears store-bought, factory-farmed leather and thinks that brings him closer to nature

sorry, but just because you can find someone, or even many, people doing something in another country does not justify it here in the good ol' U S of A

besides, no one is objecting to third world or indiginous peoples, especially sustenance-level ones, eating meat in a sustainable way... it's all about the extraordinary waste and cruelty of the American Way, of which you are a part of if you continue to eat meat not at the North Pole or China but right here

dont get in my way.

Only fools oppose Nature.

Your crack about "some Third World person" smacks of racism. Justify that.

If you look at "traditional" culturest that have been vegitarian vs those that eat meat you notice that those areas that are traditionally vegitarian are the more highly populated areas of the world (India and China). The problems with raising animals in highly populated areas extends beyond efeciency; most new strains of influenza come from pigs and chickens in SE Asia and other areas. The reasons most of the world doesnt eat meat is tied to both religion and cost, but a lot of the reasons behind teh religious restrictions probably stemmed from the spread of disease (ie the same reason its not Kosher or Hallal to eat pork) This interesting thing to think about is what the population densities were when meat eating became a problem and what percent of the human population lives in areas that dense today. The issue of meat and food safety is probably higlighted by the restrictions of cross border sales of meat; if its every bit as safe as vegitable produce why are the restrictions far more stringent?

I personally eat meat but have no problem with people guilt tripping me for doing so, just as I would have no problem with someone working to reduce people driving cars (even though I drive), or people working to end corporate domination of the airwaves and TV stations (even though I watch TV). We all have our guilty pleasures but you shouldnt fool youself into thinking that factory farms and US meat consumption is sustainable, positive for the environment or moral (vis a vis animal rights).

What does that mean? "Nature" made it so people can eat cooked meat (and almost not be able to digest noncooked meat). Humans also evolved to be violent and capable or rape and murder for fun. "Nature" doesnt require you to eat meat (or raoe peopel or kill people for fun) so arguing that one has to eat meat because "Nature" demanded it doesnt make sense.

(1.) The problems with raising animals in highly populated areas stem from over population, not the raising of animals.

(2.) Meat needn’t be raised in highly populated areas, nor should it be. So really, you’re making a straw man argument here. It’s bunk logic.


>you shouldnt fool youself into thinking that factory farms and US meat consumption is sustainable, positive for the environment

That’s another straw man. I never said that. Please address the actual issues, and what I actually said, and stop trying to confuse the readers and divert their attention with bunk logic.


>or moral (vis a vis animal rights)

It is not immoral to eat meat. You shouldn’t feel guilty. Nature made you an omnivore.

Besides, animals have no rights, and neither do we, except for those which we procure for ourselves. Least of all do we or other animals have a right to life. Life is not a right. It’s a privilege granted, but never for long, by an indifferent universe. Everything that is born, dies. Everything that dies, is made use of by the living. That’s Nature’s way. Life comes from death. Without death, there can be no life. All life feeds on the death of that which has lived before. Plants are no exception. That's how life works. Get used to it.

Some people living away from cities may have to drive a car since there isnt public transportation available to get to needed services. In some parts of the world where meat is a major part of the diet (mainly parts of E Europe) it might be hard to not eat meat when visiting since the alternatives are not widely available. Critical Mass and anticar stuff does alienate people stuck in jobs were car driving is required (especially if those in such jobs had to take the jobs because little else was available). I can see this as a little objectionable but its different form guilt tripping someone eating foie gras or cariar since those things are always a matter of choice. Meat eating and use of fur products in extremely cold climates is somewhere inbetween. For someone growing up ina a social environment where meat is a basic part of ones cultural heritage, groups that are militantly vegan wont be as appealing (as perhaps would antifur actvists to Inuits and others in environments where fur isnt a luxury good). I dont object to groups that demonize people who eat meat or drive cars but when meat eating or car driving become not allowed in a wider movement (like some anarchist subcultures) those movements can become limited and monocultural. But going to the opposite extreme and objecting to people objecting to meat being part of a broader movement is just as problematic (for the exact same reason).

and i never feel guilty eating it, or feel the need to justify it. it's as natural as anything else humans do.

no, bro. raising millions of animals in factories for mass slaughter isn't how nature made us. the first humans were hunter gatherers where it is estimated that meat made up less than 15% of their total diet. in pastoral communities the livestock were treated well and had land to roam upon. nowadays, most factory farmed animals have little room to move, stand/sleep/eat in their own excrement, and treated as drone-like commodities instead of living beings.

Not only is it disgusting that people actually eat the tortured corpses of the animals, its contributing to major problems such as greenhouse emissions and obesity. It is one thing for meat to be eaten in societies where there is little else available due to climate or other factors - such as in Tibet. In industrialized countries we all have the option to choose many delicious alternatives to meat that provide the same nutritional value without the needless suffering. Life isn't a right? What kind of sick, fucked up world do you live in? Life is a right. The fact that animals cannot communicate with us verbally or that they are a different species does not ipso facto establish the right to torture and slaughter them. A full grown pig has much more intelligence than a newborn infant or developmentally disabled human. Yet this lack of intelligence does not give us the moral foundation to kill or liberally experiment on these types of humans.
All of you have the capacity to see that animals feel pain and show some type of intelligent agency. Knowing this, how can you partake in an industry based on the maltreatment and killing of these beings? Don't be a douche.