If your God decrees you to sacrifice
someone else’s life, other life …
If your God takes pleasure in
another life’s pain, in another life’s death
what God is that?
Religious sacrifice of nonhuman animal life,
Think about it.
Palang @ niceswine
Sacrifices, how dare they sacrifice our beloved ones, our hearts……..
Religion, a choice, and how can someone accept Gods who disrespect our lives? Animal lives.
Some take religion as “god given”, but it expresses only their own, their very own collectively nourished thinking.
Nonhumans talk with nonhumans
Nonhumans talk with ‘nature’
Humans talk about nature
and define it.
Who respects nature more? Who is more positively relevant to nature as a whole?
Nonhumans are. Human societies “love” nature while they negate it.
If you keep relegating animality into reductive frameworks while doing animal advocacy work, your activism isn’t really aware of the scopes of ethical, political, sociological interfaces between nature-animality-humanity …
Messel; Nonhuman-inclusive; Animal Autonomy
Where intersections turn crossroads: shared factors of oppressive functions, separating markers. Seeing what makes each case unique might help putting the puzzles together.
With all the intersections (and what I’d additionally call the interfaces equally) given, there are also clearly factors that in the end of the day categorically separate one system of oppression from another, and in the case of the functionalities of nonhuman animal oppression we have these unique markers that we must address in order to analyse what exactly this phenomenon ‘speciesism’ is.
The mechanisms of sexism, racism, ableism and basically any way in which living individuals are actively and passively negated can be understood in their specific manifestations, that are specifically experienced by the individuals and groups who become victimized and who are affected. Intersectionally in terms of nonhuman oppression we would need the factor of having experienced being designated the role of actual “food” for example in a completely righteous manner, not in an ambiguous state. We can’t deny that nonhumans know what they are the victims of, that would be highly biologistically speciesist. The complexity of oppression is fully known by the affected nonhuman individuals and groups.
That being said one must add that it is true that life is being negated in its dignity in any cases where oppression takes place. It would be problematic to draw lines of known -isms and for example overlook individual cases of denial of the right to life and dignity.
When we involve the complex-of-nature for example we are going to get rather into understanding how life overall is being classified and negated in a fundamental way, and that not just an oppressive class, but the individual enactor of destructivity is the thinking and acting agent that should be taken a look at (after all ending destructivity is an emancipatory process at its best).
If a nonhuman animal that is considered to be a “farmed animal” crosses a street where people walk and don’t expect him/her, and if a human who is oppressed crosses a street, we categorically have the scenario that no matter what the nonhuman animal will be considered a lower life in the specific sense of a food provider and a utilitarian-type “resource”. The nonhuman will be excluded from the human race – which is a problem in itself – but be be relegated in the realm of “nature”, which is the sort of “antagonist” to human”” existence. This makes up speciesism and such type of specifics need to be analysed in all detail.
When activists solely focus on nonhumans, they tend to leave nonhumans within the biologistic speciesist paradigm. Intersectionality gets us away from biologist patterns to a partly ambivalent extent. Yet what makes speciesism speciesism, and what makes oppression oppression, and what makes humanity in total to have lived on a specifically nonhuman animal and nature oppressive basis and on other oppressive bases that affect any life in any possibility? I want to face human-created histories in terms of all existent injustices equally.
LIGHTNING SPARKLES in
Lightning sparkles in beetle souls
bird souls fox souls
dog souls cat souls
tiger souls elephant souls
Lightning sparkles in all living beings
huge lightning sparkles firework
what god prescribes
radio silence to you?
People like this: https://twitter.com/CamasD prove that speciesism can indeed be compared to racism, sexism … as far as the fact is concerned that the problem lies 100% in the deranged psyche of the perpetrator. It’s a given pretext that is employed to make things look as if the targeted subject had features, characteristics or otherwise such an ‘essence of being’ that the very obvious injustice inflicted by the oppressor against a chosen victim would be thus justified (yeah really usually the gravest forms of injustice are brought about by some rational argument – rational in the view of the oppressor).
The reasons of course why a victim is chosen by a sadistic human group has political implications, each in own complex forms.
Nonhuman animals are picked as victims, in the case of a speciesist agenda, to seek dominance via the complete physical annihilation in order to make the own species “manifest” as the winner species, as the super-ordinate god-like form of existence, as an all knowing, an all controlling species, that can even declare “the other” to be “just a piece of meat” – which is but something digestible and palatable. (see for that: Eating, crushing, as a form of wielding power over other living beings … Elias Canetti in ‘Crowds and Power’ pp. 210-211.
This female person works for http://wusthofedge.com/ and she runs her own “meat collective” in the state of Oregon where she seeks to intellectually make speciesism look like a necessity for the human condition.
Instead of accepting human cultural (and thus ethical) re- and evolution, this person puts all her fantasy and physical eager into trying to get us where nobody except the sadist even came from: she literally takes carnism to a wannabe intellectualized level.
A sad horizon for anyone
She goes to “humane” farms, dares to put her sadist hand onto the nonhumans to “stroke” them, to later involve their tortured bodies into her group-driven-ritualistic abstractions of what is one of the most extreme forms of speceisism that I’ve seen to date.
The severity of speciesism in her case bases on an idea of promulgating flesh-handling in connection with the ideologization of objectifying nonhuman animals as a form of a supposed overall human ethical enlightenment. She is one of those speciesist ideologists that wish so hard to undermine the very ethics and morals that base on the pure and undeflected commonsense human form of reasoning.
It’s time to leave behind the theories of instinctual behavior in animals. Why did we as animal rights advocates buy into the very schemes that have been set up in the first place to legitimate animal oppression? It’s theoretically possible to establish new norms and standards, new normalities in our concept of nonhumans, with which we should be able to explain, or rather describe, all that what we want and need to express in regards to nonhuman animals.
We readily take the boxes that the sciences hand over to us, into which we place “everything animal”, but then we claim “hey animals have rights and they have rights to their freedom”. But it’s exactly with those categories of zoology and biology that we unwillingly bereave them of their own world. You can’t take a living being out of his or her contexts, but that’s what the sciences do: they dissect life, they track life, they control every bit of a living being to draw conclusions. This form of approaching nonhumans is in itself an incredibly disrespectful stance.
It must be possible to reach new shores to discuss animals and their lives in a manner that would properly fit a liberation movement dedicated to their interests.
Animal liberation is for a part a matter of expanding our own views first; we are the ones who hold the animal world hostage to our mostly wrong views of them.
These other worlds and not-human cultures have their own terms, can we open our minds to that circumstance?
What upsets me specifically about religious slaughter is that it’s done on behalf of a religion, on behalf of a god. When our messed up society, our morally derailed society craves for dead corpses of tortured nonhumans I can say, well of course, our society is totally unethical, they don’t respect animals and basically also not humans, and not nature. What counts in our society is good old greed and profit.
But when a religion teaches its adherents that you ought to slaughter, then that what should stand for the sanctity of phenomena – the act of religion / being religious, having created religion – turns into the total negation, and really the TOTAL negation of life and of the value of life.
If people can’t respect other animals because the natural sciences have designed an explanatory model that puts humans of top of everything biologically, then that’s one thing, but if religion degrades life and tries to sell its lies of “love” then the world stands upside down.
I don’t understand why some people respect religion more than life.
Two comments of the non-ill-thinker
ill and vegan, it’s just ok
A: As a vegan you ought not to fall ill, because if you do, somebody might blame it on your diet.
money makes the values that represent the values of the human system in a “tangible” or “measurable” way
A: I think the monetary system feeds itself also from the demand / consumption pattern, the willingness of people to buy too much. The crux is, without buying power there won’t be any jobs. So either we buy and have jobs, or … what???
B: Something else is the crux, namely that the entire human system bases or an exploitative enmity towards the rest of nature.
fantasy / perspectives
reality / mutual concern
Hello Friends, we are back again, and here is … :
A poem and linoleum print by Farangis, CLICK TO ENLARGE:
Around where we live people like to fully light their houses with energy saving lamps. In that way they use more energy for illumination purposes than if they used less light-sources with old-fashioned light bulbs. Also I have the vague impression that people don’t take their spent energy-saving light bulbs to the “special trash” place where the bulbs should be properly disposed of or meterials be recycled. Compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury and other unwholesome things, see ‘Mercury, the downside of energy-saving bulbs‘, ‘Look Ma! NO MERCURY Energy Saving light bulbs!‘, ‘CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury‘ … .
But, no matter what the source of light is, the bright mystery remains why we reject the “DARK” so much as the side where evil and irrationality reigns and why we prefer the “LIGHT” as the source where all good comes from.
Darkness is the home of inspiration I believe, and fantasy usually accompanies irrationality.
The Night: Information pertaining to the night sky, light pollution and the ecology of the night, Anthony Arrigo
The International Dark-Sky Association
Starry Night Lights
Enhance The Beauty Of Your Home With Night Sky Friendly Outdoor Lighting
Light Pollution – the problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poetry, Farangis Yegane: