The government takes animal rights very seriously
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 5:58 pm
Even though it seems that many people on the left and others who are involved in anti-oppressive politics still consider animal rights activism a distracting joke at best, a diversion from "serious" issues, animal rights activists can be placated by knowing that the government, at least, is taking them incredibly seriously, although for the wrong reasons.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ree-minks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In fact, it's taking them more seriously than white supremacists or domestic Muslim extremists. It's so threatened by them that it labels them as domestic terrorists, even when they admit they don't do anything more serious than vandalism and theft. Meanwhile, Dylann Roof is still not a terrorist.
So, in America:
a) freeing a bunch of animals from confinement and torture and property destruction = terrorism
b) purposely murdering a bunch of innocent people in the hopes of starting a race war = not terrorism
It's amazing how threatened government and industry have been by animal rights activists, but it makes a good amount of sense, as the article explains. Animal rights fundamentally challenges capital exploitation at a very basic level, whereas white supremacy does not, even though it's objectively more dangerous and damaging. And as animal rights becomes stronger and gains more support, the government/industry (not much difference here) is going to resort to more and more openly repressive and despotic methods to quash them.
This is partly why I think animal rights is so desperately important.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... ree-minks/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In fact, it's taking them more seriously than white supremacists or domestic Muslim extremists. It's so threatened by them that it labels them as domestic terrorists, even when they admit they don't do anything more serious than vandalism and theft. Meanwhile, Dylann Roof is still not a terrorist.
So, in America:
a) freeing a bunch of animals from confinement and torture and property destruction = terrorism
b) purposely murdering a bunch of innocent people in the hopes of starting a race war = not terrorism
It's amazing how threatened government and industry have been by animal rights activists, but it makes a good amount of sense, as the article explains. Animal rights fundamentally challenges capital exploitation at a very basic level, whereas white supremacy does not, even though it's objectively more dangerous and damaging. And as animal rights becomes stronger and gains more support, the government/industry (not much difference here) is going to resort to more and more openly repressive and despotic methods to quash them.
This is partly why I think animal rights is so desperately important.