Carnist veganism has emerged as a major threat to the animal rights movement. This seemingly self-contradictory philosophy may seem bizarre at first blush. But it’s a rational, self-serving choice for a person who seeks to maximize his or her own personal popularity. And that’s why carnist veganism is the first threat to the animal rights movement that has caused me genuine concern.
The chart above summarizes how carnist veganism works. Since vegans will resist a non-vegan, and since carnists will resist anyone who exposes the psychopathology of carnism, the way to maximize one’s own personal popularity is to follow a “vegan lifestyle” while remaining “non-judgmental”—and, indeed, supportive—of the carnist way of death. In other words, the point of equilibrium for people-pleasers and popularity-seekers is that of carnist veganism.
The 2016 U.S. election cycle has given rise to a strange new phenomenon: the carnist vegan.
Carnist vegans openly describe themselves as “vegan” but actively pay, support, promote, protect, donate to, advocate for, and vote for the meat and dairy industries.
At the time of this writing, the Vermont dairy industry—both through bestiality-based companies like Ben & Jerry’s and cow-rape advocates like Bernie Sanders—has become the darling of carnist veganism. But that’s not where carnist veganism got started.
Back as soon as time permits with more discussion.
Carnist vegans actively promote, donate to, and vote for the practice of humans having anal sex with cows.
Many animal rights activists and organizations don’t even have a specific goal in mind. Just ask them! Most will be able to articulate a strong feeling that something is wrong and a strong desire to fix it. But many will not be able to describe what that fix is or how that fix actually gets done. This lack of focus is holding back the movement in a big way, in my view.
Here’s a simple chart aimed at helping activists focus their work on a specific, concrete goal.
Victory at the first three levels will represent the climax of the current animal rights movement; thereafter, the movement’s focus will shift from law-making to law-enforcing.
The latter two tiers represent the means whereby demand for cruelty-based goods and services is eliminated; such elimination undermines the financial viability of cruelty-based activities, thereby setting up the conditions necessary for victory at the former three tiers. Pick your favorite tier, and make things happen!
Here’s the September 4, 2015, draft of the Faunacide Convention. Having this language in place gives the international animal rights, protection, and liberation movement a very specific, well-defined target.
NOTES: The key substantive provisions appear in the first four articles. Although adhering closely to the text of the United Nations’ Genocide Convention (1948), this draft leaves institutional identification spaces blank so that any group of nations can agree to it, with or without the UN. That said, bringing the Faunacide Convention into force through the UN will be ideal.
It looks like the Faunacide Convention could simply re-use the existing language of the 1948 Genocide Convention in its entirety with but a handful of changes, mainly to Article 2. Adhering to the structure already in place will make it easier for people to understand and embrace.
Here’s a first draft of such a revised Article 2, with changes tracked. Please feel free to send along any language suggestions!
Version 2: Excited about this version because it is participatory. Provides a specific, daily, visual reminder of the goal as well as a ceremony to celebrate and commemorate accomplishment of that goal.
NOTE: We should be able to apply this same technique to other countries’ flags without much trouble so that abolitionists worldwide can show their solidarity with each other. Same technique–using a pink or rainbow ribbon–can also be applied for the Equal Rights Amendment II.
1944 is a very big year in the etymology of ethics-related words. That year, Raphael Lemkin coined “genocide”, and Donald Watson coined “vegan”. Introduction of these two words helped crystallize cultural recognition of the phenomena so labeled, and that recognition in turn has helped to stimulate (at least some) action.
These two words, meanwhile, beg for a label for the phenomenon that underlies both. Let’s fill the gap. Toward that end, here’s “faunacide”. Comments on how to improve the definition shown in this image?
NOTES: Genocide is, historically, but a very small subset of faunacide. Veganism is, at root, a rejection of faunacide.
You must be logged in to post a comment.