Fur

Why there are animal activists who tend to lie about animal products which people wear by presenting fur as an only one which requires suffering and death. And they advocate for inconsistent and sexist campaigns like I'd rather go naked than wear fur. Would Rosa Parks have said I'd rather go naked than sit in the rear side of the bus. No, she wouldn’t. I asked myself why animal activists are doing those campaigns. And I haven’t come to any good explanation of those campaigns.

Why you are vegan, if you talk mostly about fur. Is leather, wool and silk good. Then why you don’t wear them. I assume that you don’t wear them or think it’s acceptable to do that. You choice not to tell people reasons why you don’t wear them. What that will accomplish. It creates confusion amongst general public. They will think that we shouldn’t use nonhuman animals only for fur. But you have a solution for that, right. You assume that they cannot think for themselves and they need baby steps. I wonder what you would do after they accept that we shouldn’t use other animals for fur. What's your plan? Would you tell them I lied to you before, I think that all use of nonhuman animals is immoral; I thought you had an IQ of the rock and needed to be feed little teaspoons of the truth. Why you don’t respect the people and present them with all the facts about animal products to a person a let them decide for themselves.

And what’s about name calling, only directed towards women. I am not saying that name calling towards man would be ok. But why only women. And why only when they wear fur. One supermodel had to explain why she wore fur. I found out that she wears leather, wool and silk. Why she was criticized for wearing only fur, but not for wearing other animal products.

Against vegetarianism but not against vegetarians

Some vegans defend vegetarianism and put veganism and vegetarianism together as like they are the same thing. Vegetarianism, a belief that’s ok to use nonhuman animals. And veganism is against use of nonhuman animals. See, they are not the same thing.  But when you point out the obvious or you say something about milk or eggs you are automatically attacking the vegetarians.

How can any vegan defend the immorality? Cows and chickens are equally important like any nonhuman animal. And you can say that vegetarianism is a gateway to veganism as many times as you want, but repetitions will not make that the truth. There are people who are vegetarians for decades and they didn’t go vegan and there are more vegetarians than vegans. Reality disproves your claims.

It’s interesting that some vegans and vegetarians can call people who consume animal products names, but say something about dairy products and eggs, you have crossed the line. In minds of some people we are on the same side. We cannot say the truth because that makes vegetarians uneasy. And it doesn’t matter that cows are being raped and their children are taken away and killed. Male chicks are being killed because they are no use to the industry, they don’t lay eggs. What do you think happens to hens when they are unable to lay eggs? They are killed.

Use of nonhuman animals is inherently immoral and in today’s world cannot be justified. We must work for the better future and that future starts with veganism.

Words of encouragement to vegetarians, you claim that you care for the nonhuman animals and yet you consume animal products. That’s inconsistent. You can be vegan. To me it’s easy and when you know it’s not about you, it’s about nonhuman animals, it becomes easier.

I suppose that vegetarians and some vegans will find this post offensive because I talked about something which is forbidden, cruelty inherent in dairy and eggs(all use of nonhuman animals involve abuse). And I forgot who is our enemy, meat-eaters, because apparently animal flesh is only animal product which involve suffering and death.

Discussion and criticism as a bad things

You often read in discussions about some topic where is a lot of disagreements that we shouldn’t fight and those discussions are form of infighting and some people will by reading those discussions be deter from going vegan. Those people aren’t interested in exchanging ideas, because bad things can happen like people changing their views. That’s horrible news for welfarists because they rely on people who choice to turn off their brains and not think for themselves.  I don’t understand how can accept something without critically thinking it about.  You need to look and pros and cons of everything.

First of all, that’s called a discussion, not a fight. And how that’s infighting, due to the fact we aren’t all on the same side. Not all animal activists are vegan or promote veganism. To me it’s hard to comprehend how someone can advocate for rights of nonhuman animals and not be vegan.

I don’t understand how people by reading discussion will decide not to go vegan. Critical thinking is one of the most important tools in life. People need to critically think about their actions towards nonhuman animals, they need to come to a conclusion that those actions were immoral and if they care about not just nonhuman animals but also human animals, veganism is the answer. So how critical thinking will deter people from going vegan.

Critique is to some people something horrible. Is often said you shouldn’t criticize something. Than how we will know whatever something is true if we cannot criticize it. And if it’s forbidden to criticize something, that thing is probably not true.

To a movement who needs to get people to think, to freely exchange ideas without painting them as divisive or purist, there are people who would like nothing more than to use to turn off our brains and aide exploiters of other sentient beings. Don’t worry, they will think for use. They did an excellent job so far by helping industry who uses nonhuman animals.

Dreams of some people

Over and over again welfarists leave the most important thing in their question "would you like to have more room to move or being killed while being unconscious etc.", and the most important thing is not being killed, enslaved, used. Deliberately leaving out what it’s all about only serves to make welfarist reform somehow helpful to nonhuman animals. That’s misleading. If welfarist reforms are helping nonhuman animals then they shouldn’t have to make stuff up in order to make them helpful. It’s unrealistic to think that welfarist reforms lead to abolition of nonhuman use.  What matter is what you do, not just what you think? And using it appears that welfarists have no interest in animal liberation only in regulating of use.

If people care about nonhuman animals having more room to move and you have promoted that as a good thing, people will not go vegan, they will eat those nonhuman animals that have more room to move. And making distinction between animal flesh and other animal product is a mantra of the welfarists.  If people are eating less animal flesh that doesn’t do anything for nonhuman animals, because unlike popular belief of welfarist there isn’t only one animal product that is bad.

If anyone is living in the dreams that’s welfarist. Wake up, reality waits.

Animal flesh

Some animal activists are pushing the unfounded notion that animal flesh is the worst animal product there is. That’s discouraging because those people are vegans. And I wonder what compel those activists to spread out that. There is no moral difference between animal products. All animal products demand suffering and death. I cannot understand why you need to tell people who want to help nonhuman animals that they should promote what you are, veganism. Why is that so hard with animal activist. And it’s expected to compromise otherwise you are painted as purist, divisive, you are not helping nonhuman animals, and you want them to suffer.  Promotion of bigger cages, different way of killing sentient beings, giving award to slaughterhouse designer cannot be considered a advocating for rights of sentient beings. Those actions are detrimental and not in the interest of nonhuman animals, but in the interest of exploiters.

Most famous campaign is meat-free Mondays. This is one of worst campaigns there is, because it sends a message that consuming other animal products is ok. Better name for that campaign is senseless Mondays. Its goal is that people not consume only one animal product for a day. And it seems that it doesn’t matter that people are consuming other animal products. Don’t tell me this campaign is a step to veganism, due to the fact that veganism isn’t mentions. I don’t consider one day things as something positive, because it gives people an impression by not doing one thing for a day, that they are done with good deeds and that entitles that to do whatever they want on other days.

If you are thinking, by promoting veganism you will scare off some people and that you should promote vegetarianism or "happy" animal products, don’t compromise, we are here to change things, to help those who cannot. But we aren’t here to aide exploiters of other sentient beings. Only vegans are making a real difference for the nonhuman animals. So how promotion of anything less will help them. 

Doing something for the nonhuman animals now

By being vegan and advocating for veganism and adoption of companion nonhuman animals, you are saving sentient beings now. Domestication of nonhuman animal is one of sickest things that humankind ever done. And we have a strong moral obligation to take care of them. So if you can, adopt nonhuman animals, they will make your life wonderful and livable in this sick world.

Veganism isn’t just a diet, its more than a lifestyle, it’s a commitment to nonviolence. Some claim that vegan diet is hard, it’s usually not, it can be, but it’s usually very easy.  Reading labels on food isn’t hard when you think what’s at stake, life of a sentient being who as you, wants to live and not suffer.  It’s interesting that people who complain the most that vegan diet is hard are from the West, were you have so many alternatives to regular, violent "food" to people to adjust not eating animal products. And people, who are in the West, have plants, right? Where I live there aren’t so many vegan cheeses and I haven’t found any vegan ice-creams. I would like to try those foods, but it’s not about me or my pleasure, it’s about them, nonhuman animals. I don’t mind making my own buckwheat pate, tofu(you can buy tofu, but it’s cheaper to make) or ice-cream(I only made ice-cream from frozen bananas, so if anybody have good recipe for vegan ice-cream, please let me know) etc.

People sometimes say you can’t be a 100% vegan. What that suppose the mean? Does that mean if I cannot be perfect at something, I shouldn’t do that at all? If I cannot be 100% vegan, I will strive to avoid all animal products. Veganism isn’t about perfection; it’s about what we can at least do. We aren’t saints or martyrs, we are regular people who care about sentient beings.

Non-vegans say nonhuman animals are killed during harvest. That’s interesting, because those people don’t care about other sentient beings, otherwise they would be vegans. Large amount of crops are used to feed billions of nonhuman animals. We do our best not to participate in violence and we cannot influence what happens during harvest. Once vegan population is significantly higher, we can demand that people don’t kill sentient beings during harvest.

It’s said that some people won’t go vegan and we need to promote vegetarianism or "happy" animal products. Promotion of anything but veganism is promotion of violence. Vegetarianism isn’t morally defensible position, because all animal products involve suffering. Can someone find a single thing that all people on this planet agree? I claim that you can’t. People don’t need to be feed teaspoons of truth, most of them can understand and their hearts and minds need to be open to inherent immorality of use of nonhuman animals.

Do we need to promote steps to veganism? No, promotions of steps are bad and detrimental idea. But that doesn’t mean that you must go vegan at once. If someone hear the vegan message and can’t go vegan at once, he will make plans to do that. Most important thing is that person heard the vegan message and he will choice steps to veganism. When you tell somebody not to eat and wear some animal products and they agree, how are you going to tell them after that they shouldn’t eat/wear all other animal products? You just told them not to eat/wear some animal products. And some wonder why general public thinks that animal activist have a hidden agenda. If promotion of steps leads to veganism, why there are more vegetarians than vegans? Evidences are against promotion of steps.

You have a power to decide not to directly participate in exploitation of other sentient beings. Do the right thing, go vegan.

Buckwheat pate

Ingredients

300 grams of buckwheat

3 stalks of leeks or garlic

150 grams of mustard

2 or 3 tablespoons of parsley

2 or 3 tablespoons of oregano

2 tablespoons of onion powder

Pepper

Salt

Curry

What you do:

First you have to do is to wash buckwheat. Then drain water from buckwheat. Add washed buckwheat with water in the pot. The ratio of buckwheat and water is one part per 3. Cook the buckwheat in the water on low heat until softened. And cook leeks in the pan until softened. Leave cooked buckwheat and leeks to cool. I discovered it’s better not to cool it too much, because then it’s harder to blend. Mix the buckwheat with leeks and use blender to blend it. If it’s too hard to blend, add little water. Put that mixture in the pot and add mustard and other spices. Use mixer to mix it all. Put buckwheat pate in container and cover it with little sunflower oil to last longer.

It’s delicious and cheap to make