I have been called a bitch. A couple times. Some people do not care for me, or rather, animal murderers do not much care for me, at least the ones with whom I’ve blogly and verbally sparred. These exchanges typically begin and regress in familiar patterns, the self-indulging excuses of abusers punctuated by insults and curses and ending in haughty dismissal. But my feelings of guilt are nonexistent, and far removed from slumber party politics is apathy and murder, the machine of malevolence that diminishes life to calculations and greed, the literal expression of figurative evil, and in this war I would no more embrace the murderers of non-human animals with kindness and warmth than I would murderers of human animals with kindness and warmth. Your speciesist pretensions aside, the life of one is as inherently valuable as the life of another.

I will always share a welcoming gesture to any who want to learn about the animal holocaust and how to diminish as much as possible the complicity in such, and I will support any in that journey. But to those who refuse responsibility or pardon involvement with tired excuses, your indignation is wasted. You are not my concern and your feelings of emotional guilt manifesting as personal attacks against me or others is boring, the mediocrity of mass absolution in the global war against animals, and I defend the ones who are unable to fight you: the non-human animals you consider with disposable ethics, squishing at will to conform to your human-manufactured benefits. Is this your platform, then, one of mainstream politics and contemporary religion, gut as guidepost, “condemning” us as hippies or tree huggers, insanely ridiculous, and not-in-touch-with-nature? In other words, as long as you can define us as lunatics, you may reasonably ignore our message? To legitimatize cruelty by bastardizing those opposed is indeed a formidable strategy. And strikingly similar to a game I played when I was ten.

You hate the term of murderer. However, killing animals, directly or indirectly, is murder. Taking the lives, deliberately and needlessly, is murder. Supporting financially, socially, ritually, physically, and greedily is murder. There really can be no disagreement with such an accurate description of animal abuse and slaughter, yet mention this to the majority masses and you’re met with shocked indignation at such an inflammatory association. People loathe this description and will search all corners of the physical and digital universe for definitions all excluding animals from such spurious claims. Morality by Webster, how positively revolutionary, and inherently illogical. As self-centered beings rejecting ethical conflict, human animals write their morals with eloquence and speed, judicious missives meant to assuage personal guilt.

“I pray for my food!” Now that is precious, such a beautiful, pithy phrase redolent of Hallmark. I am sure the ghosts of animals past would appreciate your utterance of gratitude for your opportunity to abuse and kill them. Or not. What self-serving pious banality. You give thanks to make yourself feel morally pure, a ritual of human gratification imparting appreciation on intangible deities for the murder of existing beings. I am tolerant of and accepting of all religions, freedom of such an indelible privilege all should enjoy absent persecution UNLESS exploited as a directive to sanction harm against other beings.

Own your own thoughts and actions, and then change them, don’t cowardly stand behind a book or a ritual as validation. Anytime a person parades the tired excuse of religion to rationally answer the question of victimization it is such an insult to intellect and a contradiction of ethical evolutionary advancement; cognitively, billions of people are still neanderthals, and if you think that is an insult, fabulous, try evolving. Nothing is as regressive as the sanctimonious thought of praising in death that whom you won’t respect or appreciate in life: the non-human animals you so callously disregard, unworthy of a care or concern, until dead and bloody on your plate, and then considered with prayer. Reactionary armies never had such stalwart soldiers as the drones who reject sentient life, but praise murder, using prayer as a medium of approval.

But let us extend a moment of appreciation to all those who spend five minutes on Google and triumphantly expose the measures written by humans to satisfy the moral question of cruelty: animal welfare laws. That is so utterly radical, laws written to regulate the industries, that kill animals, by the industries, that kill animals. In my dictionary, that is regarded as a conflict of interest, a socially moralizing appeasement meant to benefit the one species that inflicts cruelty upon the ones for whom the laws are “intended”. Let us not waste one moment debating the hypocritical, conceited notion of establishing “welfare” protocols for animals relentlessly tortured and savagely killed. Socially acceptable murder using verbal justifications eliminates guilt and serves to extinguish any potential disquiet for human animals but DOES NOT protect non-human animals from harm. Human animals are the only benefactors of such enactments, those who enjoy ethical solidarity with those whom kill.

I had the recent nauseating experience of reading the exasperated, monotonous argument of a pro-killer accusing me of misrepresenting the Animal Welfare Act. It is so convenient for the perpetrators to promote the Animal Welfare Act, though, like a badge precluding cruelty and harm. How does killing non-human animals, however, protect them from cruelty and harm? Undoubtedly, commodifying and murdering animals is fundamentally inhumane, and laws enacted by industries meant to regulate itself would be laughable if not so dangerous, but the proudly “progressive” majority would scarcely question that which may cause a dietary conflict, the gorged masses nothing but flesh addicts, weak with self-congratulatory hubris for their compelling empathy.

And since the AWA specifically EXCLUDES the ten billion animals raped, brutalized, and killed for food; and the tens of millions of animals raped, psychologically and physically abused, skinned, and gassed for fur; and the animals tortured most for those disfigurements of “science”, those hideously creepy charlatans of vivisection, nonsensical authentications of perverse “compassion” serve no more protective nature than the air expelled screaming them. When humans implement laws as a demonstrable means of protecting OURselves, it is not done from the position of our potentially premature deaths but rather from our established intrinsic value of life: the murder is not made illegal based on the absence of life but rather on the existence of life stolen, the foundation of constitutional privilege and the expression of sentience. It therefore screams for reconciliation: how can our species even possibly consider sufficient the measures that “protect” other species while dismissing their life as inconsequential, their deaths a natural progression of human “compassion”? It is PREPOSTEROUS, a moral conflict, a pseudo application of ethical armor to endorse the savagery while promoting causative empathy.

But let us take a moment to congratulate the AWA authors for such a grand expression of compassion in covering about three animals. It’s actually more grammatically efficient to list the animals covered versus those not covered, the ones who did not make the cut on a list shockingly long. And included in those covered are cats and dogs. I am thrilled at such progressiveness, roughly 95% of the population is supportive of laws that criminalize abuse towards cats and dogs, it’s politically heartwarming to be a part of such valiant and courageous efforts, going out on a limb and embracing such radical efforts. Indeed, it’s this type of trailblazing that will obliterate speciesism by the year 6729. If we’re even still around. And let’s not forget that, rather than endorse protections, for, say, horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, mink, mice, poultry, turtles, snakes, birds, etc., etc., etc., those AWA pioneers included dead animals. Nothing is more gratifying than knowing a dead animal has more protections than a live animal. That’s actually supernaturally relevant, the ambitious people of late-night television commercials will be thrilled to know their clients are protected by law from, perhaps, verbally abusive mediums.

But make no mistake: those who love their decomposing diets will serve pluralized purposes, hailing all animal-killing industries or rituals as necessary, vital, moral, and their right, be they for food, fiber, fun, or pharmaceutical. Ah, the profundity of a murderer’s justifications, you’ll never experience such loyalty. Or stupidity. But I wait in anticipatory excitement the writing of the Human Welfare Act to sanctify the killing of people. To protect people. From harm.

These measures are pointless and only serve to saturate our society with more speciesism, and by extension, welfarism, both unconditionally dangerous and immoral, supporting the anthropocentric superiority that grants itself the authority to rape, abuse, and murder ALL species, exempt from an ethic and immune from a consequence, the law an ambivalent reaction to satisfy a doubt. This will kill the planet and every being on it.

And if you have any question regarding the depraved conditions and treatments to which animals are subjected, you need only refer to that purveyor of health and empathy, compassion third only to savagery and murder, the federal government. Feel free to browse the millions of documented cases chronicling the disease, affliction, physical deterioration, immobilization, abuse, pain, paralysis, and gangrene status of your meal, bred with greed, treated with wretched disassociation, stolen from life, butchered with torment, and moralized with human indulgent banality:



Animal Disposition Reporting System

So when you, on your pedestal of indignation and dogmatic righteousness, accuse me of being “mean” please refer to the “mean” nature of the industry you promote with impunity. I challenge you to subsequently terminate the juvenile fourth-grade rhetoric of clique intolerance and accept that nothing I could EVER say or call you could even begin to compare to the horrifically cruel, barbaric, wretched, and REALISTIC industries of animal murder that YOU cause and support. But please feel free to continue attempting to divert attention from your selfish indulgence as supportive of needless brutality and murder and focus instead on my vocabulary, a tactic we all learned during recess in grade school.

Finally, each time I write about the sentience of non-human animals, and their inherent rights to lives free from human-orchestrated exploitation and suffering, I’m met with the dreaded “plant” argument, so I would like to confront such a bold assertion with a preemptive response: I haven’t been involved in animal rights for half my life only to be shocked into submission by such a ridiculously shallow and illogical position: if you honestly feel the need to consider plants as deserving of rights rather than animals, please visit a library or read a book. To consider plants as possessing value similar to human animals, but disregarding the sentience of non-human animals, is a demonstration of profound stupidity. Your philosophical rubbish is further challenged by the fact that the animals you consume themselves consume more plants than I ever could. Each of you believes you are being cunning, an intellectual force, when you promote such idiocy, but we’ve heard it, we’ve laughed about it, and we’ve marveled at your utter ignorance, endorsing plants as more similar to humans, and therefore deserving of “rights”, while ignoring animals. And we’ve expressed sufficient embarrassment on your behalf.

So you still think I am a bitch? Tough. At least I’m not a murderer.

Stacey Larson