Vegan Trove Podcast Ep 20: Shouldn’t Buddhists Embrace Veganism?

One of my latest Vegan Trove podcast Ep 20: “Shouldn’t Buddhists Embrace Veganism?” (Listen here)

Of course everyone should embrace veganism. In Episode 20 I ask the question and sharing some personal experiences with Buddhist organisations. As well I explore the reasons why ‪#‎Buddhists‬ should naturally embrace ‪veganism‬.

If you’re not vegan, please consider going vegan. It will be one of the best decisions you make in your life. You can find a link to many good vegan resources on my site.

Please subscribe to podcast updates here.
Thanks for listening. Till next time 🙂

Tim Putnam Speaks on Speciesism and Abolition at Colorado State University

Tim Putnam Speaks on Speciesism and Abolition 04/03/2012 Colorado State University – YouTube.

Violence, war, human species, religion, ideology, Corporate state quotes by Chris Hedges

“Violence is a disease, a disease that corrupts all who use it regardless of the cause.”
― Chris Hedges

“A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, and fails to understand that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death.” ― Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle

“There are always people willing to commit unspeakable human atrocity in exchange for a little power and privilege.”
― Chris Hedges, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning

“The greatest danger that besets us does not come from believers or atheists; it comes from those who, under the guise of religion, science or reason, imagine that we can free ourselves from the limitations of human nature and perfect the human species.”
― Chris Hedges

“Those who fail to exhibit positive attitudes, no matter the external reality, are seen as maladjusted and in need of assistance. Their attitudes need correction. Once we adopt an upbeat vision of reality, positive things will happen. This belief encourages us to flee from reality when reality does not elicit positive feelings. These specialists in “happiness” have formulated something they call the “Law of Attraction.” It argues that we attract those things in life, whether it is money, relationships or employment, which we focus on. Suddenly, abused and battered wives or children, the unemployed, the depressed and mentally ill, the illiterate, the lonely, those grieving for lost loved ones, those crushed by poverty, the terminally ill, those fighting with addictions, those suffering from trauma, those trapped in menial and poorly paid jobs, those whose homes are in foreclosure or who are filing for bankruptcy because they cannot pay their medical bills, are to blame for their negativity. The ideology justifies the cruelty of unfettered capitalism, shifting the blame from the power elite to those they oppress. And many of us have internalized this pernicious message, which in times of difficulty leads to personal despair, passivity and disillusionment.”
― Chris Hedges (Pulitzer Prize recipient and blogger on Truthdig)

“Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds expression in the anonymity of the Corporate State. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism, and the Constitution while manipulating internal levers.”
― Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle

“Sadism dominates the culture. It runs like an electric current through reality television and trash-talk programs, is at the core of pornography, and fuels the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral choice and diminishing the individual to force him or her into an ostensibly harmonious collective. This hypermasculinity has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our lack of compassion for our homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed, and the sick. … We accept the system handed to us and seek to find a comfortable place within it. We retreat into the narrow, confined ghettos created for us and shut our eyes to the deadly superstructure of the corporate state.”
― Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle

“Hope has a cost. Hope is not comfortable or easy. Hope requires personal risk. It is not about the right attitude. Hope is not about peace of mind. Hope is action. Hope is doing something. The more futile, the more useless, the more irrelevant and incomprehensible an act of rebellion is, the vaster and more potent hope becomes.
Hope never makes sense. Hope is weak, unorganized and absurd. Hope, which is always nonviolent, exposes in its powerlessness, the lies, fraud and coercion employed by the state. Hope knows that an injustice visited on our neighbor is an injustice visited on all of us. Hope posits that people are drawn to the good by the good. This is the secret of hope’s power. Hope demands for others what we demand for ourselves. Hope does not separate us from them. Hope sees in our enemy our own face.”
― Chris Hedges

“Animal Rights: Persistence in the Struggle for Justice”

Animal Rights: Persistence in the Struggle for Justice

“I found the minds of the people strangely indifferent to the subject of slavery. Their prejudices were invincible—stronger, if possible, than those of the slaveholders. Objections were started on every hand; apologies for the abominable system constantly saluted my ears; obstacles were industriously piled up in my path… What was yet more discouraging, my best friends—without an exception—besought me to give up the enterprise! It was not my duty (they argued) to spend my time, and talents, and services, where persecution, reproach and poverty were the only certain reward. My scheme was visionary—fanatical—unattainable… But opposition served only to increase my ardor, and confirm my purpose.”

~ William Lloyd Garrison (July 14, 1830)

We live in a world where the vast majority of people consider it perfectly acceptable to oppress and exploit other animals, despite the fact that we have no moral justification for doing so. Every year in the United States, approximately ten billion land animals are killed, after being intentionally bred and enslaved, all for human gain. Worldwide, the numbers equal approximately 56 billion annually. When we count animals who live in water, there are tens or hundreds of billions more every year.

All of these animals are as innocent as children, but we treat them as though being born as a member of a different species is a crime worthy of life in prison, often accompanied by torture, ending with the death penalty. In fact, for the vast majority of them, the lives they are forced to live are so unbearable that premature death – itself a severe harm – might conceivably serve as some kind of merciful release from a life of physical, psychological and emotional suffering.

Widespread veganism is the only hope these nonhuman beings have for emancipation from their brief, brutal existence. Such a fundamental change in our society will only be brought about by a radical moral paradigm shift similar to those which resulted in the abolition of human chattel slavery and the voting rights of women.

Moral paradigm shifts, however, do not cause themselves. They are caused by small groups of people within society – always considered “radical” in their own time – who persistently educate others over decades about why change is necessary. Indeed, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator, a weekly anti-slavery newspaper, in 1831, and it wasn’t until after 34 years and the bloodiest war on United States soil* that slavery was finally abolished in 1865. Similarly, the women’s suffrage movement’s first well-known spokesperson was John Stuart Mill in 1865, but women were not permitted to vote until 1918 in the United Kingdom, and 1920 in the United States.

 * Note that William Lloyd Garrison, the authors of this article, and the abolitionist approach to animal rights reject violence, and support only non-violent education and reasoned dialogue as a means to social justice, regardless of the cause.

In their efforts to educate and to engage in civil disobedience in the name of noble causes, abolitionists and suffragists endured ridicule, anger, imprisonment, and death threats, both from the establishment itself, and also from counter-movements made up of citizens with an interest in maintaining the current situation.

Nobody minded a quiet abolitionist or suffragist. Respecting “everyone’s personal choice” with deferent silence was deemed “moderate and respectable” by those vested in the status quo. Challenging the injustice with moral education was called “self-righteous,” “offensive,” “extremist,” and “off-putting.”

Take, for example, the following quote from 1847, in which human slavery proponent Joseph W. Lesesne criticizes anti-slavery advocates and the abolitionist movement:

 “[The abolitionists’] conduct has been most atrocious. No language is strong enough to denounce it. The shameless impudence with which they have trampled the Constitution under their feet, and their mean and despicable contrivances to deprive us of our Slave property ought to be held up to the scorn of the whole Union.”

The more direct and unequivocal an advocate’s position, the more resistance he or she encountered.

And so it is with vegans today. Despite the fact that we stand so clearly on the side of justice for all sentient beings, we can expect to encounter resistance most of the time. As strong vegan educators and advocates, we can expect to be dismissed, ignored, misrepresented, and to be subjected to whatever treatment those opposing us believe would be most effective at discouraging our efforts. Recognizing and accepting this situation for what it is, and realizing that other successful social justice movements faced similar resistance and criticism over spans of decades, can help us persist in our efforts over decades as well.

Aside from simply being on the justifiable side of a cause, a major reason that social justice movements of the past succeeded was persistence. Realizing that even the most effective vegan advocacy will take decades, rather than months or years, to have its intended goals achieved can give us the perspective we need to ultimately succeed by avoiding the burnout that comes with obsessive activity, unrealistic expectations, and a short-sighted focus on short-term results. We should recognize that it might sometimes be beneficial to take a break and recharge our batteries,  and that, alongside our personal advocacy, it’s important that we also strive for physical, mental and emotional health, so that we can be as effective as possible in our efforts to educate and inspire others.

So let us relentlessly persist in the struggle for justice at a pace we can maintain for as long as is necessary. Let us not measure our progress in insignificant welfare “victories”, which, during the short time they last, only serve to perpetuate the exploitation paradigm and make consumers feel better about their purchases of animal products. Let us instead measure progress in terms of the increasing number of ethical vegans, the decreases in animal product consumption, the increases in vegan alternatives, and the gradual transformation of the collective consciousness, which, only 65 years ago, didn’t even have a word to describe someone as being ‘vegan’.

Over time, the irrepressible power of justice will prevail, as we overcome the shameful prejudice and despicable discrimination that attempts to justify and maintain the moral status of animals as economic property and tradable commodities. Until that day comes, let whatever opposition comes our way serve only to increase our ardor, and confirm our purpose.

Drawing on the wisdom of another of the great voices of the anti-slavery movement of the 1800s, Frederick Douglass,

 “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

Speciesist Language and promoting discrimination in the minds of others

On LiveVegan today I commented about speciesist language and on being mindful of not accidentally promoting speciesism in other’s minds.

Here is a the link to the discussion that followed if you wish to view it

It’s good to try and be mindful of our language. When we refer to other animals, it’s important not to refer to them as “it” or “creature”. It’s also good to use the word “who” in a sentence. e.g the pig who did this etc. Speciesist language —- just like racist, sexist, homophobic, cissexist language — promotes “otherization” of groups. It ultimately promotes violence.

I personally try to avoid talking about other animals with non-vegans (or avoid talking about them in general) in terms of how other animals make me feel. I may speak about the cats who share my life privately with abolitionist vegans, and I may talk with abolitionist vegans about certain animals who visit our yard and how delighted I am that they visit, but I try to avoid talking about feelings regarding animals to the non-vegan public because it often just reinforces their speciesism. I might address in a calm and hopefully skilful way a speciesist comment they make and try and help them to think about their comments differently if at all possible. And I will try and bring veganism into the conversation if possible.

But my point is, that whatever I may or may not feel about certain species of NH animals is my own issue and has little to do with that individual species. For example I think snakes are very interesting individuals. We live in a rural area where a particular snake who is very deadly to humans lives. A bite from this particular snake and in 30 minutes to an hour after a bite and it’s all over. I have come across a couple of Tiger snakes on the quiet road where I walk each day, and I have mixed reactions. I have a feeling of fear for my life and I also have feelings of love, fascination and care for them. Of course they are more fearful of me than I am of them. I once privately talked with an abolitionist vegan about my experience where I almost accidentally stepped on a Tiger snake at night who was resting on side of the road where I was walking. I could have been bitten had I not noticed the snake. I would not mention this incident in front of a non-vegan because it is likely to arouse feelings of speciesism. They may react with anger or fear and they may respond by speaking hatefully about that particular animal. They may also want to kill that particular animal if they encounter them in the future. So I do my best to never speak in such a way which could promote feelings of either fetishization, or dislike or favouritism of particular species. The public are speciesist enough and we don’t need to reinforce it. 🙂

Of course the most important way to address our own speciesism is to stop eating, wearing and using other animals and educate others to go vegan as well.

 

Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginner’s Guide)

Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginner’s Guide)

“And a growing number of abolitionist vegans are explaining and demonstrating the simple fact that unless we shift the paradigm to fully include these sentient beings in our moral community by embracing veganism and rejecting the property status of animals, there will be no end to the socially-acceptable barbarism which allows us to treat beings as innocent as our children as economic commodity units.”

My interview

Interview with Trish Roberts of LiveVegan – Roanoke vegan | Examiner.com
In celebration of World Vegan Month, I will be hosting a collection of interviews with vegan abolitionists from across the globe. I’m excited to have this opportunity to showcase vegan activists and give a face to our beautiful movement. Be sure to check back for regular installments throughout the month of November.
Today’s featured vegan abolitionist is Trish Roberts of LiveVegan. I highly recommend following LiveVegan on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter. Trish does a wonderful job of keeping us up to date on activities from other abolitionists and relevant current events and news stories.

Trish, tell us a little about yourself…

My name is Trish Roberts. I’m an abolitionist vegan and I live in Australia. I became vegan overnight after reading some information about the reality of the dairy industry and the associated veal industry, and also upon hearing about the slaughter process of chickens. That was six years ago. Shortly after becoming vegan I started an AR/vegan advocacy group.

It wasn’t until I came across Prof. Gary L. Francione’s work in mid 2009 that I truly clarified my own position. My own education is an ongoing process and through his work, I believe I have become a more effective advocate. I spend much of my time doing vegan education mostly through social networking sites like our page LiveVegan on Facebook, Twitter, LiveVegan vids and podcasts on Youtube, fora, discussions and in everyday life.

I’m vegan because I believe we have no right to eat, wear and use other animals. 56 billion nonhuman animals are tortured and murdered each year for our pleasure. Approximately 1,140,000 sea animals are tortured and murdered every 30 seconds for our pleasure. This is morally unjustifiable and it is unimaginable violence. I’m vegan because I believe in nonviolence and justice; so I cannot in good conscience promote anything less than veganism. I believe veganism is the most important social justice movement today and is the most important form of activism one can engage in.

If I may share a quote by a friend, author of “UVE Archives“) which I agree with wholeheartedly:

[I] am a vegan because after much learning and thought about the issue, I have come to see enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing an animal as morally equivalent to enslaving, exploiting, or intentionally killing a child. The only difference is one is socially acceptable and the other is socially unacceptable.

What do you think should be the focus of the non-human animal rights movement?

There are two movements today — the “humane” use movement (all large animal organisations) and the abolitionist movement.

The abolitionist movement is a grassroots political movement and it’s growing every day. Its focus is the abolition of animal use through creative, nonviolent vegan education. Veganism rejects the property status of animals and is a recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals. The abolitionist movement is unique because it has veganism as its moral baseline. Our focus should be not HOW animals are used, but THAT they are used, and the only way to address this terrible injustice is to be vegan and educate the public to be vegan.

What are some of the biggest obstacles to reaching our goals?

One of the biggest obstacles to achieving our goals is the false belief that “humane” use / welfare “reform” will lead to abolition, that welfare is just a different tactic to meet the same objective – abolition. However, welfare and abolition are opposing and incompatible views. Welfare “reform” makes animal exploitation more efficient by reducing production costs; it further enmeshes animals in the property paradigm; it makes people more comfortable about animal use and does little to nothing to reduce the torture of other animals. Animal welfare protects animal interests only to the extent that it provides economic benefits for humans.The reality is there’s no such thing as “humane” use or “humane” murder, and even if there were, it would still be unjust. ALL animal use is abuse. ALL animal use is violence.

Today we have big multi-million dollar animal organisations that are just charities. They are not political. Abolitionists are building a political grassroots movement with veganism as our foundation.
I’d like to take this opportunity to say if you are not vegan, if you believe in justice and nonviolence, please go vegan. It’s easy and it will be one of the most profound and important decisions you will make in your life.

LiveVegan Podcast #23: Our Conflicted Attitudes Toward the Death of Animals

LiveVegan Podcast #23: Our Conflicted Attitudes Toward the Death of Animals
A reading of Brockway Hall’s excellent piece

What is Violence? What is Nonviolence?

I’ve written a rather long post on some of my thoughts on nonviolence. I’m sorry if it rambles, but there’s a point to it 😉

I’ve often wondered what I would do if I was on the receiving end of physical violence. I had the opportunity at one time in my life to discover what I would do. Apart from the shock of the incident, my impulse was to do my best to remove myself. The incident was not extreme enough that I felt my life was in danger, but it was quite shocking and an education. I sometimes wonder how I would respond in a life-threatening situation. I know that I would do my best to temporarily seriously disable the other person, before removing myself, but I really do not know if I could ever deliberately kill another being to save myself. I hope that I would not do that. I guess we never know what we are going to do until we are in that situation. ***I do know that the moment I end the life of another, no matter what has unfolded prior, I have demonstrated that my life is more important to me than the life of that other person’s (human or non) and that attitude is at the core of most of our problems.****

Forms of social discrimination and social inequity are violence and it is often a precursor to greater violence e.g WWII.

It’s often the case that people refer to the WWII as an example where violence was justifiable to end the war, because the Nazis were doing awful things. It is true the genocidal policies were horrific, but National Socialism rose as a reaction to other injustices. None of it justifies the policy of genocide, but the injustices weren’t justified either.

Please indulge me for a few paragraphs while I discuss some history.

Hitler rose in large part because of the dire situations of the Germans were in during the Weimar Republic. The causes of that situation lie in the Empires of France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Britain, Russia, and the Ottomans. The empires were extremely classist (and sexist and racist) societies based in hereditary economic divisions in which the aristocracy held almost all the wealth and power, and ordinary people had few rights. The royals and aristocrats of these empires were mostly close relatives, eg. Kaiser Wilhelm was the grandson of Queen Victoria and cousin of Czar Nikolas’ wife. Ordinary people were used as fodder for competitions between family members. A few years before and after conflicts, combatants would be be intermarrying and having celebrations with each other.

Not only did these aristocracies oppress their “subjects”, they garnered much of their great wealth from their Empires, the subjugation of most of the rest of the world. The lead-up to WW I was more about competition in carving up Africa and China and SE Asia than about Serbia. These empires were rooted in oppression, theft and slavery of the majority of the world’s population. The German and Austro-Hungarian Empires were what remained of the old Holy Roman Empire, dissolved by Francis II (Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz-Joseph’s grandfather) in 1806. With the Austro-Germans already fracturing, the Russian, British, and French empires saw the Serbian crisis as a way to attack a weak competitor.

What ended the senseless and prolonged slaughter of the war was not some wonderful tactical cleverness by generals. It was the fact that ordinary people were reaching the limit of their acceptance of their exploitation. Three years after the start of the war, the Russian Empire was overthrown by the people. The Kaiser’s navy had rebelled and also raised the socialist flag in Wilhelmshaven, calling for “peace and bread”, and by Nov 7 1918, Bavaria had rebelled and become a socialist region. In the US, Gene Debs leader of the American Socialist Party had been imprisoned for opposing the war.

His party was fighting for economic equity successfully enough that the US imposed the Espionage Act (1917) to limit free speech, the Sedition Act (1918) made statements considered “disloyal” a federal crime, and with the Palmer Raids (1920), the idea of “un-American activities” became a reason to prosecute and oppress socialist dissent. In the UK, Socialists and thinkers like Bertrand Russell were also fighting against the war. Effectively, WW I was ended by agreement, so the various aristocracies could fight the wave of peoples revolutions.

The ending of the war didn’t prevent the operation of greed by the winning aristocrats. The Austro-Hungarian and German empires were shattered into numerous smaller nations, and the victors split up the colonies. Their “terms of surrender” included massive reparations even though most of what was left of the economy was based on cheap colonial imports. Not content with that, the victors maintained blockades preventing imports to Germany even after the war was over.

The result was a major cause of the depression which lead to many Germans becoming desperate. For example, in 1914, 50 million DM (Deutschmarks) was worth about US$12 million. Nine years later, it was worth a dollar. A wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks would buy a loaf of bread. Within a few months it was worthless. People used 1 million DM bills as notepaper, since it was cheaper than blank paper. And yet, assistance was given to suppress the socialist revolutions.

The point of this historical diversion is to say that if people acted from a sense of justice and respect for others, the situation in Germany is not likely ever to have arisen. When a situation like fascism is created through poverty, awfulness, greed, exploitation of others, it is easy to justify violence against those who are committing genocide. We say “This is so bad we have to do something” (violent). Ahimsa would say that the need to act is earlier, before fascism arises, when vengeance and greed impose depression, economic collapse and hopelessness within a nation like Germany, and a breeding ground is created for the mindless anger that becomes fascism.

In the US right there is now a similar situation occurring where there is great inequality and economic poverty. This hasn’t happened overnight, it’s been brewing for decades. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the hopelessness, poverty and oppression likewise creates situations which are fertile ground for people who preach anger and hatred. The disenfranchised look for a leader/s who personifies and articulates that anger, and they almost always look for a target — e.g sometimes a marginalised group– glbti, women, Muslims, etc; sometimes a group of oppressors.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “Poverty is the worst kind of violence,”

The US defense forces spend 1.75 billion dollars per day in spreading the US empire. With every country the US gov invades and occupies, that nation continues to create great poverty and desperation. That in turn becomes a breeding ground for violence and so on it goes. Imagine if that 1.75 billion dollars/day were spent on wages for workers, US and foreign, diplomatic efforts, to fix the destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, build hospitals etc. It would improve so many facets of life there, and not only do what is just, but to create fertile ground for future peace, not only there in war-torn countries, but to address the resentment against the US and probably significantly reduce threats to the US.

Here’s an essay by Noam Chomsky people might like to view: Remembering Fascism: Learning From the Past http://www.truth-out.org/remembering-fascism-learning-from-past58724

Finally, here’s a few quotes I like:

“Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” — Mahatma Gandhi

“Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.” Gandhi

“Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Of course, animal use is violence, and I believe it is at the core of all the violence we see unfolding. Where we have one kind of discrimination, we will have all kinds — speciesism = sexism= heterosexism = racism = classism and so forth. Veganism is the cornerstone of nonviolence.

When we persecute the vulnerable, we have become completely dysfunctional. I see our species as animals who are pathological, dysfunctional and completely caught up in our “sacredness” and delusions of supremacy and nothing good can ever come of that. With this destructive attitude, selfishness and our complete love of, and addition to, violence, we will probably be extinct in a century or so. I’m not being pessimistic here, I’m being realistic.

Here’s a couple of excellent quotes about anger:

“Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.” Gandhi

“You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.” Buddha

Blog post by Trish Roberts

What is violence? What is nonviolence?

I wanted to share this. I’ve written a rather long winded comment on some of my thoughts on nonviolence. I’m sorry if it rambles, but there’s a point to it 😉

I’ve often wondered what I would do if I was on the receiving end of physical violence. I had the opportunity at one time in my life to discover what I would do. Apart from the shock of the incident, my impulse was to do my best to remove myself. The incident was not extreme enough that I felt my life was in danger, but it was quite shocking and an education. I sometimes wonder how I would respond in a life-threatening situation. I know that I would do my best to temporarily seriously disable the other person, before removing myself, but I really do not know if I could ever deliberately kill another being to save myself. I hope that I would not do that. I guess we never know what we are going to do until we are in that situation. ***I do know that the moment I end the life of another, no matter what has unfolded prior, I have demonstrated that my life is more important to me than the life of that other person’s (human or non) and that this attitude is at the core of most of our problems.****

Forms of social discrimination and social inequity are violence and it is often a precursor to greater violence e.g WWII.

It’s often the case that people refer to the WWII as an example where violence was justifiable to end the war, because the Nazis were doing awful things. It is true the genocidal policies were horrific, but National Socialism rose as a reaction to other injustices. None of it justifies the policy of genocide, but the injustices weren’t justified either.

Please indulge me for a few paragraphs while I discuss some history.

Hitler rose in large part because of the dire situations of the Germans were in during the Weimar Republic. The causes of that situation lie in the Empires of France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Britain, Russia, and the Ottomans. The empires were extremely classist (and sexist and racist) societies based in hereditary economic divisions in which the aristocracy held almost all the wealth and power, and ordinary people had few rights. The royals and aristocrats of these empires were mostly close relatives, eg. Kaiser Wilhelm was the grandson of Queen Victoria and cousin of Czar Nikolas’ wife. Ordinary people were used as fodder for competitions between family members. A few years before and after conflicts, combatants would be be intermarrying and having celebrations with each other.

Not only did these aristocracies oppress their “subjects”, they garnered much of their great wealth from their Empires, the subjugation of most of the rest of the world. The lead-up to WW I was more about competition in carving up Africa and China and SE Asia than about Serbia. These empires were rooted in oppression, theft and slavery of the majority of the world’s population. The German and Austro-Hungarian Empires were what remained of the old Holy Roman Empire, dissolved by Francis II (Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz-Joseph’s grandfather) in 1806. With the Austro-Germans already fracturing, the Russian, British, and French empires saw the Serbian crisis as a way to attack a weak competitor.

What ended the senseless and prolonged slaughter of the war was not some wonderful tactical cleverness by generals. It was the fact that ordinary people were reaching the limit of their acceptance of their exploitation. Three years after the start of the war, the Russian Empire was overthrown by the people. The Kaiser’s navy had rebelled and also raised the socialist flag in Wilhelmshaven, calling for “peace and bread”, and by Nov 7 1918, Bavaria had rebelled and become a socialist region. In the US, Gene Debs leader of the American Socialist Party had been imprisoned for opposing the war.

His party was fighting for economic equity successfully enough that the US imposed the Espionage Act (1917) to limit free speech, the Sedition Act (1918) made statements considered “disloyal” a federal crime, and with the Palmer Raids (1920), the idea of “un-American activities” became a reason to prosecute and oppress socialist dissent. In the UK, Socialists and thinkers like Bertrand Russell were also fighting against the war. Effectively, WW I was ended by agreement, so the various aristocracies could fight the wave of peoples revolutions.

The ending of the war didn’t prevent the operation of greed by the winning aristocrats. The Austro-Hungarian and German empires were shattered into numerous smaller nations, and the victors split up the colonies. Their “terms of surrender” included massive reparations even though most of what was left of the economy was based on cheap colonial imports. Not content with that, the victors maintained blockades preventing imports to Germany even after the war was over.

The result was a major cause of the depression which lead to many Germans becoming desperate. For example, in 1914, 50 million DM (Deutschmarks) was worth about US$12 million. Nine years later, it was worth a dollar. A wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks would buy a loaf of bread. Within a few months it was worthless. People used 1 million DM bills as notepaper, since it was cheaper than blank paper. And yet, assistance was given to suppress the socialist revolutions.

The point of this historical diversion is to say that if people acted from a sense of justice and respect for others, the situation in Germany is not likely ever to have arisen. When a situation like fascism is created through poverty, awfulness, greed, exploitation of others, it is easy to justify violence against those who are committing genocide. We say “This is so bad we have to do something” (violent). Ahimsa would say that the need to act is earlier, before fascism arises, when vengeance and greed impose depression, economic collapse and hopelessness within a nation like Germany, and a breeding ground is created for the mindless anger that becomes fascism.

In the US right there is now a similar situation occurring where there is great inequality and economic poverty. This hasn’t happened overnight, it’s been brewing for decades. The situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the hopelessness, poverty and oppression likewise creates situations which are fertile ground for people who preach anger and hatred. The disenfranchised look for a leader/s who personifies and articulates that anger, and they almost always look for a target — e.g sometimes a marginalised group– glbti, women, Muslims, etc; sometimes a group of oppressors.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “Poverty is the worst kind of violence,”

The US defense forces spend 1.75 billion dollars per day in spreading the US empire. With every country the US gov invades and occupies, that nation continues to create great poverty and desperation. That in turn becomes a breeding ground for violence and so on it goes. Imagine if that 1.75 billion dollars/day were spent on wages for workers, US and foreign, diplomatic efforts, to fix the destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, build hospitals etc. It would improve so many facets of life there, and not only do what is just, but to create fertile ground for future peace, not only there in war-torn countries, but to address the resentment against the US and probably significantly reduce threats to the US.

Here’s an essay by Noam Chomsky people might like to view: Remembering Fascism: Learning From the Past

Finally, here’s a few quotes I like:
“Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” — Mahatma Gandhi

“Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.” Gandhi

“Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.” Martin Luther King, Jr.

Of course, animal use is violence, and I believe it is at the core of all the violence we see unfolding. Where we have one kind of discrimination, we will have all kinds — speciesism = sexism= heterosexism = racism = classism and so forth. Veganism is the cornerstone of nonviolence.

When we persecute the vulnerable, we have become completely dysfunctional. I see our species as animals who are pathological, dysfunctional and completely caught up in our “sacredness” and delusions of supremacy and nothing good can ever come of that. With this destructive attitude, selfishness and our complete love of, and addition to, violence, we will probably be extinct in a century or so. I’m not being pessimistic here, I’m being realistic.

Here’s a couple of excellent quotes about anger:“Anger is the enemy of non-violence and pride is a monster that swallows it up.” Gandhi “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.” Buddha

[a blog by Trish Roberts Oct 31, 2010 ]