This is the consequence of animal agriculture. As long as Turkey keeps siphoning-off water to feed the sheep and lambs to turn into kebabs to shove down their big-gobs, wildlife is going to die too. I’m hoping Turkey never sees another flamingo and that they become extinct in that country, they (the Turks) deserve nothing except to live in a barren wilderness surrounded by whirling dervishes and old hags with carbuncles on their big, ugly noses.

Reuters Science News@ReutersScience·Thousands of baby flamingos have died at Turkey’s Lake Tuz in the past two weeks from a drought that environmentalists said was the result of climate change and agricultural irrigation methods.


Perhaps non-vegans shouldn’t write about veganism, they don’t seem to understand the vegan ethic. Certainly the dimwit that penned this dross should have consulted a vegan and not sourced their material from nutritionists who only waffle about, er, nutrition. Vegans are not just about ‘food’, they are against harming animals of all species in all scenarios. Still, on the subject of ‘food,’ vegans don’t give a toss about plant-based diet, that is not veganism, it’s a diet for those looking to be healthy. Veganism is a social-justice movement, committed to curtailing the murder of animals, the torturing and suffering imposed in concentration camps, death camps and execution chambers.

No peer group in history has suffered in the same way as animals have done and continue to do so. Add-up all the wars and atrocities documented and the figures for the whole don’t come anywhere near the daily murdering of sentient beings. The animal holocaust is the single biggest genocide known to man, constructed by man and inflicted by man and that is what veganism is committed to eradicating. Xanthe Clay, the journalist behind this drivel seems to have missed the point, concentrating instead on ‘isoflavins’ and ‘monoculture’.



There is no-nice-way to say this and I make no apologies for it. Australia is in flames, a consequence of too much dry weather. The environmentalists are clamouring in the streets in protestation at their beleaguered prime minister who is accused of denying climate-change. Scott Morrison once held-up a piece of coal in parliament and scoffed at environmentalists, an act he now regrets. He has capitulated and now accepts the concept of global-warming.

Global-warming and climate-change are one-and-the-same. There are many-fold reasons for the phenomenon. Fossil fuels, pollution from the factories that burn it. Pollution from mineral fuels that transportation uses which leads to carbon deposits too, hence, carbon-footprint. Incidentally, New Year’s revellers might want to consider where the residue from the pointless fireworks display goes after they ”oohed” and ”aahed” in accompaniment to their orgasmic, frivolous escapism.

The environmentalists bang-on about plastics contamination on land and at sea, they moan about transportation, pointing the finger at others. Yet they are as big a culprit as those they demean. I’ve taken a look at them, especially their noble superstar leader, Greta. They mostly wear animal products and consume animals too. Animal agriculture being the biggest contributor to climate-change. Pollution of the land, rivers, oceans. The amount of water and crops it takes to rear the animals and the land used for it is astronomical. I don’t take environmentalists seriously, in fact, they are bigoted tossers.

There they are, on the streets of New South Wales, with their sanctimonious placards and their pious voices with their recyclable banners (hopefully) and wearing hessian underwear (probably) and sporting organic shopping bags (maybe). All wearing some item of animal and cheap-labour manufactured clothing. And what of New South Wales itself? Apparently, according to a researcher -who did a case-study some time ago,- half a billion animals will have perished in the likelihood of such a scenario. This may or may not be fact.

What I will say is, it’s sad to see wildlife and domestic animals killed in such a manner. Australia is a big sheep farming country and I am sure they raise other farm animals too. I have seen images of sheep, mutilated by shearing. I’ve seen images of sheep exported on ships to halal countries. As much as it is sad to know farm animals perished by either smoke inhalation or incineration, I’d much rather that, knowing they are freed from the brutal and tortuous existence of the farm, and freed from the inevitable horror of the hideous and barbaric death inflicted upon them at the hands of the slaughter house psychopathic murderers. Hopefully the animal’s tormentors perished in the fire too. Yes, I did say it!

Last night, Channel 4 served-up a poor-man’s version of ‘I’m a celebrity,’ in which animals are used as a novelty item in a trivia-based programme. There is no point to any unnecessary event that ultimately results in the harming of animals. It’s a sad fact that animals the world-over are exploited to brutal murder, to turn animals into an experiment at the hands of
dedicated carnist cowards is yet another shameful expose of how animals are considered to be commodities, there to be manipulated for titillation by TV executives.
Two programmes were shown on Channel 4 last night; ‘’Meat the Family’’ and ‘’Apocalypse Cow’’. The first showed families receiving various farm animals to care for over a three-week period ending with their decision to put the animals into the ‘food-chain’ or to a sanctuary.

The family in charge of the pigs were within a short-space-of-time showing concerns. The mother and son eschewed pork whilst the father made ‘jokes’ about eating ham and bacon whilst apologising to the pigs outside. The other son stated he would ‘’carry-on eating pork’’. That was until dad read-up on the dangers of eating processed food, a la bacon. He found out that sodium nitrate is a killer, a vital ingredient in processed food. The family had visited a farm prior to short-term adoption of the pigs and saw the pigs in a non-industrial setting. Dad was quick to research via internet to show his son what takes place in intensive farming. ‘’That’s to stop mum crushing her piglets’’ he mentioned to his son. He was viewing how sows are kept caged in the one-position, most of their productive lives, except when they are being raped to reproduce. The ongoing story is continued next week.

The family with the chickens eventually sent them to slaughter claiming that the ‘’chickens would not live very long at a sanctuary’’. One daughter seemed to be affected and the mother made noises about ‘’being put-off chicken’’ yet seemed to do a lot of laughing about being an ‘’ethical carnivore’’! Despite their pseudo cultivated accents, I found them to be quite shallow and virtually bullied the one daughter into accepting the inevitable murder of the chickens. The daughter showed real concerns and could have -given the chance- eschewed chicken. However the parents lied to her over the fate of the chickens and how the chickens have a wonderful free-range life and in future they would buy organic chickens blah blah.

Even when they visited a free-range farm and sampled the dead animals, it seemed to go-over-their-heads that animals are murdered, regardless of their treatment prior to their journey to the slaughter house. The two farmers were quick-to-point-out how their chickens are different to the broilers in the food-chain that are considerably different. Apparently their ‘birds’ have bigger breasts and longer legs, ideal supermodels then! As the family poo-pooed their way around the farm, they eventually sat-down to a chicken dinner. They found it quite yummy and compared the difference to their usual chicken feast. At no stage did it resonate with them that they were eating murdered animals
and as the woman had stated: ‘’ignorance is bliss’’ and that defined her. The farmers’ never explained to them why there were no male chickens and what happens to day-old male chicks. They sat-down to a chicken feast when the three slaughtered chickens that they once cared for were returned to them in cellophane. A score of 0/0 for this odious lot. Consigned to the dustbin.

Channel 4 isn’t showing the harsh facts. The internet shows what really happens on farms and in slaughter houses around this planet. It’s the only place to get the real truth and certainly it won’t be found in makeshift, viewer-friendly, pointless trivia television time-slots that masturbates the minds of the feeble and craven carnist hordes.

Apocalypse Cow was presented by George Moirot. He is an environmentalist. Although I’m sure there was a narrative in which it was said: ‘’I don’t know how they feel about a vegan on their farm’’ (or words to that effect) Mr. Moirot did say to ‘Abbie’ the farmer that he does not eat her produce. Her reaction was to say: ‘’shame on you’’ which as convoluted as it is, explains why farmers believe they are important to our existence on this planet. Crop farmers yes, animal killers, not-so. Mr. Moirot presented a very scientific look at how animal agriculture is poisoning the land and the alternatives to it. He didn’t dwell on the animal’s fate, more on rewilding the land and artificial foods made from thin-air.

Mr. Moirot’s concern for the planet are laudable, however, at-this-time, people are starving because vital crops are being given to animals and there is a case for explaining why that is happening. Mr. Moirots rewilding mantra extends to killing animals under the heading ‘culling’. He was quite shaken that he had to use a high-powered rifle to kill a deer and cried after doing so. He explained how it had to be done and was so upset that he then tucked-in to a veal steak from the murdered animal cooked in-situ. All I can say is: Mr. Moirot isn’t a vegan but has succeeded in rewilding his appearance. The programme was environmentalist bullshit.


Disease can strike any one at any time. By disease, I mean any thing that can debilitate the person, whether it be cancer, arthritis, syphilis or diabetes. Many diseases affect the person at any stage of their life. Some are age-related, some are life-style choice.

We are constantly warned by experts to make changes to our life-style. The doctors and NHS target smokers and warn them of the consequences. At one stage there was a threat of refusing medical treatment to the smoking fraternity. Conversely, they didn’t lecture those that participate in pointless dangerous sports, or ‘adrenalin-junkies.’

There have been many warnings concerning food-stuffs. BSE, E. coli, Listeria, all found within meat, eggs, and dairy. On balance, bacteria also linger in vegetables, notably pre-packed salads. Processed meats were heavily criticised and the warning went out to reduce one’s intake as they were cancer-inducing. The same warning was issued to smokers. By and large, the anti-smoking campaign has worked. Advertising has been eliminated and many people have turned to ‘vaping’.

I don’t have the data for ex-smokers or for those that cut-down on meat. Interestingly, the chance of contracting cancer through meat and dairy is far greater than that from smoking. Smoking contributes to cancer and one either smokes or not. There is the ‘passive smoking’ point too. With meat, it does not end there. It’s not only processed meats that can cause cancer. It’s all meats and the dairy spin-offs from milk.

No doctor will tell you the truth, they are not allowed to. The government would have them barred from practising and so the doctors and the politicians are complicit in ensuring many people will die prematurely and quite painfully. It’s called collateral damage. There are scientists and doctors out there that will confirm the facts; they don’t obviously work for the NHS. The food stuffs industry generates billions in revenue and has considerable economic and political clout, enough to corrupt those that are in power.

No vegan will ever contract cancer from animal products, as opposed to their carnist counterpart. Neither will they suffer diabetes or osteoporosis through milk-based products. Of course you don’t know, it’s hidden from you. Read ‘White Lies’ and be enlightened. Smoking is seen as a habit, a leisure pursuit, hence the demonising. Food is seen as sustenance, a necessity and therefore free from criticism. If I should fall to cancer, I will at least find comfort in the knowledge it wasn’t from eating the remnants of murdered animals or the secretions of those brutally held in death camps. Carnists will never know and that in its self is mental torture. Still, they don’t care about the torture they inflict on their victims so hey, do I care! They are also a burden on the NHS with their vile diet and its deadly diseases.



Kevin Pietersen and Jens Hogh are both South African. Pietersen played cricket for England and Hogh is a ‘’Trophy Hunter’’. Pietersen is campaigning to save the ‘Big 5’ and has a pod-cast concerning the poaching of endangered species, hence his appearance on ‘This Morning’. Hogh was brought into the debate to counterpoint Pietersen’s campaign and he (Hogh) explained why hunting  is ‘’conservation’’ and without it animals would suffer! Hogh also deplores poaching!  Pietersen wasn’t impressed with this argument and suggested that Hogh could give hunting-money directly to conservationist groups rather than kill animals. They both levelled counter arguments that both held truth and farce.

As I watched the sorry debate unfold I thought that it was equivalent to watching a pair of cunts trying to out-cunt each other. Pietersen says ‘’I don’t have a problem with those hunting animals for food’’! Presumably, he does not care about farm animals either. It’s anyone’s guess what Hogh thinks about eating animals. Watching them both argue over the different issues brought me to the conclusion that there is no better illustration of contradictory buffoons trying to intellectualise  the reasons for not killing or killing animals, than this ridiculous spectacle. I’m sure had a vegan been party to the debacle and offered the suggestion that rather than debate what animals should or should not be killed, it would be far better to not kill anything. They, Pietersen and Hogh would have scoffed at the idea and labelled the vegan a tererorist, extremist nutter. Such is the mentality of carnist thought processes. I know who the madmen are, those that hypocritically advocate utter shite!

Curiously, the simpering Scholfield and Willoughby made all the right sympathetic  oohs and ahhs to show how they agreed with Pietersen and after the interview said: ‘’let’s see what Ken (Hom) has for us’’? On-cue the odious Ken Hom said: ‘’I’m doing a beef marinated in piss’’ and both Schofield and Willoughby said: ‘’ooh, ahh’’ and that is the empathy they give to animals. All of them speciesists and bigoted assholes. I’m sure if these ‘intellectuals’ took a look at what they said and analysed it they’d come to the same conclusion.


Who and what are ‘Extinction Rebellion’? As I understand it, they are well-intentioned people concerned about climate change. They are conscientious advocates of making our planet a better place, blah fucking blah. What they are is a collective bunch of hypocrites and bigots. They are the ones destroying the planet. The only people that have authority to stand and be counted is vegans. As with speciesists and their convoluted thinking, the environmental yobs contribute to global warming.

Animal agriculture is the biggest single contributory factor that is killing this planet. When vegans campaign against animal cruelty, they are scoffed at by the billions of carnist protagonists. Yet, when a cause becomes populist, they are out in their droves, causing mayhem. There they are, sanctimoniously proselytising and offering dull rhetoric, cars, planes, carbon footprint and by the way meat, as an afterthought.

Take a look at them, wearing animal derivatives and after a hard day’s hypocrisy, off to McDonald’s for a hard-earned meal. Quite frankly, I dismiss them as fairweather shitehawks, in for the glory. No vegan should stand on a platform with them. We stand on our platforms and we don’t need to be sullied by these despicable parasites. To join forces with them is to taint our ethics, to sell-out to those we fight against.

Too often we see those that are anti hunting quite happy to defend killing animals for food, or exploitative ventures such as zoos. Too often we see those against experimentation and vivisection quite happy to accept farm animals as food. Too often we see those that want to ‘save the whale, the dolphin, the elephant, rhino,’ et al as cause celebres yet dismiss farm animals as unworthy of their poncey campaigning.

Cars and planes do hurt the planet and they do cause health problems to humans but they don’t scream for their lives and die horrifically in the way farm animals do. There is a bit too much ‘too often’ with the hypocrites in the ‘Extinction Rebellion’ crusade for my liking. All they have done is hijack a vegan mandate and distorted it to suit their agenda.It does not pay to get in bed with the enemy, in the long term, it is detrimental to our cause.


At least once a month I have to catch-up with signing petitions. There are many petition sites showing more-or-less the same subject matter. I choose Care2 over the others if only for the fact they give Butterfly Points. ”Ooh,” I hear you cry, ”how lovely”! The ‘Butterfly Points’ translate into gifts of food for whatever cause you support, which seems generous.

There are other sites I support, although on a lesser scale: ‘Lady Freethinker,’ ‘In Defense of Animals’ to name a few. One I steer-clear of is ‘Change.Org‘. It will become clear as this story unravels.

I fully understand that charities have to ask for donations to continue the work they do. Some charities, namely the larger, well-known outfits do nothing and we are pointing the finger at the ‘RSPCA’ who actively support animal cruelty. ‘Peta’ too has come in for criticism over it’s dog euthansising policy. There are lesser known charities struggling to survive and we should support them over the bigger, corporate monoliths.

The ‘RSPCA’ have a turnover annually of around £44 million. It is run by accountants and investment brokers. They will never be short of revenue. Smaller charities are lucky if they get £44 in a month. They are not able to afford costly advertising campaigns and their only recourse is to have a social media profile in order to generate interest. We have to support them, they do what we are unable to do, by offering sanctuary to violated animals.

Petition sites also ask for donations. I’m not sure why, it costs nothing to start a website (depending on the package) and can be run by one person from anywhere. My own site is run from wherever I am at the time. At present I am sitting in a tree observing a cuckoo! The point is, where are the donations going? And so, the ‘‘ outfit is one for scrutiny. If you want to start a petition on ‘Care2,’ for instance, you formulate it and hit the button. It is up to the individual how you promote it.

At no stage does ‘Care2’ ask for a gratuity to get the petition up and running. Not so with ‘Change’. At the start of a ‘Change’ petition they ask for a donation (of varying amounts) to ”reach out to signatories” to get the petition ”up and running”. I didn’t bother and to-date, I only have 1 signature on a petition started last year. Also, ‘Change’ asks signatories to donate to ”help the petitioner get their petition noticed”. I happen to be a signatory and I have never been paid to sign a petition, so why do ‘Change’ ask the petitioner for a fee and where does the signatories’ donations go to? Certainly not to the petitioner.

There are no costs involved in emailing signatories to sign a petition. I’m sure the website package includes x amount of emails. My opinion is someone is raking it in and it is being done off the backs of animal suffering and the kindness of caring humans. Choose wisely the petition sites you want to support and if you want to start a petition, do not pay. We are not to be exploited by those that would take advantage of our concerns and generosity.



I have always maintained that discussing animal cruelty with carnists is futile. They neither want to understand the debate or the components within it. It’s a hard-task and in any case, I have yet to meet any carnist to debunk the premise: killing animals is wrong.

The wider debate, exploiting animals is wrong is also another conundrum for them. They think animals stolen from the wild is acceptable because the animals enjoy performing ‘tricks’ for a gormless bunch of onlookers. It does not occur to them (the gormless) that animals do not dance on two front legs in their natural habitat.

The carnist is so backward in thinking that what seems perfectly ‘normal’ to them is anathema to others, namely, vegans. Curiously, the confused mind of the carnist is open to ridicule. They may deplore fur, dog meat, experimentation, yet accept farm animals, marine, zoos as ‘normal.’

Social media is probably the wrong place to engage a carnist for debate. There are two categories of carnists: the dimwitted, gloating shit-for-brains type and the pseudo-intellectual cod philosopher. Both types are unmitigated, unadulterated parasites that feed on their own blinkered pot of prurience.

I will show you the following dialogue with the odious ‘OrangeDonut’ from Twitter only recently. Briefly, he commented on a vegan post, to deride it. I replied to his comment, I think, fairly. His response was to get shirty. My strategy is to let them lead as they are the person that initiated the comments.

All I do is reply to their comments.. Not always politely, however, whatever they say, I reply to in general. Inevitably, they go off-point and go feral, ad hominem and blatantly abusive. Of course, I retaliate because I know there is no debate per se and it is now personal. The debate has now become infantile and is mud-slinging with no reference to any animals as such.

The tweets are self-explanatory so I don’t have to walk you through them. Ultimately, ‘OrangeDonut’ used his ‘’wife’s’’ illness as a ploy to try and get me to say something derogatory so he could get the sympathy vote. In the same tweet, he maligned animals, gloatingly. I ignored the tweet, having already explained he had lost through time-wasting.

I doubt he has a ‘’dying wife’’ and she certainly didn’t start dying at the end of his tweets that went on for hours. If his point was he can’t be arguing with ‘’silly children’’ then why did he bother when he could have been attending to his ‘’dying wife’’ from the outset? If I had commented on the last tweet I would have asked for medical evidence and in the absence of any, told him his ‘’imaginary dying wife should die an imaginary painful death similar to the animals he mocks and no doubt she eats!’’ Harsh, maybe, nonetheless effective.

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.44 PM.PNGScreen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.45 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.46 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.47 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.48 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.50 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.51 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.54 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.56 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.57 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.58 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 01.59 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.00 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.01 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.02 PM

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.02 PM 001.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.03 PM

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.03 PM 001.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.04 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.06 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.07 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.09 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.10 PM.PNG

Screen Shot 04-02-19 at 02.12 PM.PNG





During March of an undisclosed year, seven individuals set off from an undisclosed location in a nondescript camper van. Taking the country roads so as to avoid CCTV, they arrived at an undisclosed destination. Six people emerged from the camper van, having taken everything from their pockets and leaving the items in the custody of the remaining person. They wore one-piece disposable coveralls, slip on shoes, disposable gloves and each carried a carrier bag filled with items. They removed from the van three Katana motorbikes. They donned crash helmets and set-off to an unknown destination. The time was 06:30 AM.

At 08:30 AM, the local hunt at an unknown location met in the car park and recycling collection point of a small hamlet. They had hot refreshments and were quite chirpy about the day’s forthcoming event. The Sunday morning peace was broken by the excited chatter of the fifteen individuals with horses and hounds plus two sets of terrier men on quads making ready to exit the slumbering village. The group, at a canter, made their way out of the car park towards the bridle path that would lead them to a wooded area. The time was 09:00 AM.

At 06:45 AM the group on motorcycles arrived at the undisclosed venue and concealed their transport in the hedgerow. They moved swiftly to the wooded area and positioned themselves in trees previously identified as vantage-points. They had no means of communication with each other and only referred to each other by hand gestures. They had rehearsed this scenario many times in the preceding months and each knew the part they had to play. They had timed to within an ‘nth’ of a millisecond their roles and allowed for no mishaps. At 09:20 AM, they heard the distant sound of riders.

The hunt entered the woods, hoping to pick up a scent of a fox or any animal that would interest the hounds and give cause for the chase. They rode briskly but without too much noise, the hounds not yet baying for blood. They approached an area where the ground led down towards a river bed, long dried up, and was a copse in its own right. Here, they would travel single file for several hundred yards until emerging into an opening where they could regroup. As they passed the trees bordering the gully and prior to their exit up the slope to the clearing, two figures in trees either side of the riverbed removed several items. The time was 09:55 AM.

With hand gestures, the two figures lit flash-bangs and threw them into the back-door riders. As the startled riders turned to look for the source of the explosives, two other figures threw flash-bangs from the front, causing the riders to wheel-around looking for the other source. The hounds were in the clearing whilst the horses and riders were trapped in the gully. Horses were rearing and fretting while the riders, deafened by the noise were disoriented and shouting in panic. The four individuals then removed repeater fireworks from their bags and lit them. When held, these would fire out explosive charges and work similar to mortars. The impact upon the riders was devastating. They were trapped. The time was now 10:05 AM.

The terrier-men having been in the woods as a rear-guard and back-up heard the commotion and went full-paced towards the source of the noise. At one hundred metres from the kill-zone, the terrier-men passed two figures that had descended from the trees and lain in wait. As they threw flash-bangs at the men on the quads, the vehicles overturned in an effort to avoid the explosions. They were then attacked with repeaters and lay moaning and injured, suffering burns and injuries from their vehicles crashing. One of the two individuals moved towards the groaning, incapacitated men and took a large knife from his person. He moved between the casualties, beheading each one with a skill that suggested a medical background. The time was now 10:15 AM.

The two individuals that dealt with the terrier-men moved swiftly to the main group and met with their colleagues who had contained the seriously injured group. Riders had suffered life-threatening injuries, burns, trauma injuries from being crushed by the horses and indeed, some horses suffered injuries. Through a series of hand-gestures, the master of the hunt and his two lieutenants were identified. The individual responsible for beheading the terrier men took a .38 revolver from his person and despatched the three identified individuals. The group of six then quickly moved from the copse to their vehicles and rode the several miles to their rendezvous. They arrived at 10:30 AM.

Carefully removing their coveralls, shoes and gloves, they put the bikes into the van and left calmly and at a sedate pace. En route, the clothing was burned in a wood burner and the weapons secreted on-board. At various points on the journey, and a good distance away from the killing fields, riders and pillions were sporadically dropped off to ride the rest of the way, taking care to vary their routes and avoiding CCTV. The van driver also took preventive measures and made their way to an unknown destination where they would all meet for a debriefing at a later time. The time was now 11:00 AM.    

In the coming weeks, despite condemnation in both The Commons and The Lords, the police, the hunting fraternity, the CPS, and the media, no one was arrested. The police had no forensic evidence, The explosives were generic, untraceable to any individual’s hallmark. The bullets had to be matched to a gun, feared to have been long disposed of. No DNA was found at the scene. More importantly, although suspected to be the work of hunt sabs, there was no clear proof of a motive. There was some support though. It was pointed out that the government was complicit by default in not preventing the hunts from killing animals in contravention of the 2004 Wildlife Act.

It was said by activist groups that for too long the government colluded with the privileged elite in turning a blind eye to their heinous activities. The police and CPS were also accused of being in cahoots with the hunts by preferring to harass hunt sabs who were trying to uphold the law, rather than arrest those breaking the law. The resulting furore brought about a debate that saw the law changed to ban drag and trail hunting and hefty penalties for anyone riding with hounds. A year on since the incident that left seven dead, three blinded and others disfigured has discouraged hunts from venturing out, even to exercise the hounds and horses. Meanwhile, somewhere in an undisclosed location, a camper-van waits patiently, having been regularly serviced and cleaned to perfection.

This is a work of fiction and should be seen as such. Anyone using it as a blueprint for enactment will have to pay me due copyright fees. Thank you.




Without being self-righteous and pompous (which is not the intention here) I would ask that you examine your values, credo and ethical purposes that you use to justify your existence. The task set is: are you a hypocrite! Well, are you? Do you point the finger at others for some minor infringement whilst committing a greater infraction? Most would probably say ‘no’ yet I firmly believe they are lying. Even if they are unaware that they are. I suppose we all are guilty of hypocrisy in one way or another, intentionally or not.

One thing I am not is an animal abuser, which most of you reading this are. I’m sorry, but any carnist or malzoan is, without doubt, a subscriber to the barbaric and brutal murder of animals. And, yes, I’ve heard all the convoluted, illogical drivel aimed at vegans and rebutted it all. So no, don’t anyone criticise vegans for trying to preserve life with such abject dross as ‘plants have feelings too.’ Concentrate on the animals killed for your taste buds, not pseudoscience.

Dog lovers especially are the most puerile bunch of tits I have ever encountered. I have dogs yet I don’t eat other species because they are ‘food.’ There are those dog lovers that in their massed ranks will set up a lynch mob to vilify anyone that has an image of their self posted on social media abusing a dog. I have seen these ‘Facebook’ jihadis in their thousands threaten the most medieval torture on someone that smacked their dog in public for a perceived wrongdoing.

These same people are quite happy to ignore the daily abuse dealt towards animals in the farming industry. The farming practices are by-and-large legal and those farm animals do not enjoy the same protection as dogs, cats, et al. Both covert and overt filming has exposed what takes place on farms (much to the dismay of farmers and the foodstuffs industry!) There are many graphic films and images available (if you are able to watch) circulating on social media and feature films such as ‘Land Of Hope And Glory’ which shows the carnage perpetrated on animals on a daily basis.

I’m sure there are many of you appalled by ‘trophy hunters’ or the ‘fur trade.’ Equally, I’m sure many of you get teary-eyed at whales, dolphins and seal cubs regularly hunted and culled. Dog lovers will particularly be horrified by the South Korean and Chinese dog meat trade. I’m sure many of you will cry into your beef broth at images of elephants poached for their tusks. Yet many of you will gladly ignore the suffering of your dead animal served up as a meal. You will excuse it as the ‘food-chain.’

There is no such thing as the ‘food-chain.’ That is a cliche used as an excuse to kill, sentient beings that understand, fear and pain. Your meals do not enjoy a peaceful existence on farms. They do not willingly rush to the slaughterhouse to be mutilated whilst still alive. Day-old male chicks put into a mincer whilst alive, their gender unsuitable for the egg trade. Bull calves killed within hours of birth, they being unsuitable for the dairy industry. The females removed from mothers to become the next generation of slaves to the dairy industry.

The mother’s milk eagerly consumed by humans. Ask yourself why you are drinking a secretion meant for an animal! Why not drink cat’s or dog’s milk? You’ll be pleased to know that milk contains faecal matter, blood, and pus along with antibiotics. No, it does not give you calcium, rather, it sucks it from your bones. Read ‘White Lies’ which details the perils of milk. The facts are, it is speciesist to objectify and commodify certain animals while purporting to love other types of animals. It is why I ask you to question your sanity (or your version of sanity) because, if I am brutally honest, carnists are a mixed up lot that appears to be contradictory buffoons.



I have spent enough time on social media, specifically Facebook, to gauge the anti-vegan sentiment that abounds. What’s interesting is those that voice their hatred of vegans do so because they imagine vegans are intimidating them and therefore a perceived threat to their way of life. It does not resonate with them that they have visited a vegan page to post their vulgar comments. I often asked why they felt the need to spew their bile, had vegans attacked their home page and vilified them? Of course, the answer was no, the carnists had nothing better to do than descend upon the vegan pages to get their ‘jollies,’ for whatever the perverse reasons.

These ‘trolls’ would be a mixed bag. The ‘’yummy bacon’’ lot was the basic of them all. Then there would be the ‘’intellectuals’’ that have convinced themselves that they had the bombproof argument that would undo the vegans. “My ancestors ate meat,” “in the wild lions eat animals,” “the bible says,’’ and eventually, “plants have feelings too.” I took to posting a Carnist Bingo Card, which showed all the pathetic excuses offered up by carnists and pointed out that we have seen all this nonsense and easily debunked it. Nevertheless, undeterred by research and scientific evidence, they would hold that their uninformed opinion was empirically supreme. Such is the mentality of a meat-eaters addled brain.

Many accusations leveled at vegans by carnist jihadis is risible, ignorant drivel. “Who are you to impose your opinions on me” is often the cry of the meat collective, (bearing in mind they chose to visit a vegan page and interrupt our debate!) with other equally mindless dross, including the hoary old chestnut: “we all have choices” and “why do you put animals above humans” which then brings in another lot, the pro-life lobby! Firstly, I have every right to impose my opinions and values on those that impose their opinions on defenceless animals. Yes, we do all have choices in life. Those choices can be morally wrong and criminally wrong. Morally, I believe I have the better argument when I advocate not being cruel to animals. Vegans do not put animals above humans or vice versa, we argue that to treat animals as ‘food’ is to view them as lesser beings.

History is littered with incidences of those that see others as lesser mortals than themselves. I don’t need to name-check. Equally, any movement that is different to the mainstream is viewed with suspicion and in the not-too-distant past, the right for women to have the vote was widely ridiculed, homosexuality was a criminal offence and Virginia Woolf thought eugenics used against the lower classes was a necessity to curb the onslaught of dim-witted children. Without a doubt, the knives are out for vegans who are considered as fringe-loonies, cultist, faddish, fluffy tree huggers. It’s easy to demonise those that challenge the constraints of society, while the masses remain comfortably numb in their cosy, smug complacency, fearing change and defending their hypocrisy.

I firmly believe carnists live a hypocritical life. On the one hand, they cry buckets for endangered species, cry for their pets when they pass on, they campaign against badger culling and fox hunting, even against animal experiments, yet are quite happy to ignore the animal holocaust that is meat/dairy production. And, for no rational, logical reason other than “it’s food!” There is no provision in law to classify the killing of any animal as murder. It would create a legal minefield that would bring the judicial system to a halt. Veterinarians would need special dispensation and Jeremy Clarkson would be behind bars. Whether you shove a kitten into a microwave oven or slaughter a pig, you’ll never be tried for murder. The former will be cruelty, the latter, “food.”

Many cruel practices take place on farms. Some are quite legal, some not so. Within the slaughterhouse, many practices are legal, some not so. In the end, no one gives a fuck, as long as they have their portion of the dead animal and/or its secretions to satisfy their taste buds and impregnate their bodies with deadly toxins. Many vegans are so for health reasons which I am not wholly convinced of. However, I find it paradoxical that a non-smoking health fanatic would decry others for a decadent lifestyle, yet shove deadly bacteria down their gullets. At present, I have one pig film showing abuse and soon there will be other equally horrific films to watch. I would ask you to view them and tell me that you do not find them horrific, hideous, barbaric and grotesque. If you feel that it’s acceptable (yet not towards a family pet) to inflict such pain and suffering on a sentient being then it’s not just cognitive dissonance you suffer from, it’s a lack of humanity. You have no conscience and no compassion. I have and I ask, how sane are you!





Despite my best-efforts in conversations with friends and acquaintances, I find I am talking to ignorant cunts. I use that terminology because they know exactly what their actions are doing to innocent animals, yet they won’t change their ways even though they accept the points I make. I listen to their (stupid) justifications for inflicting barbaric torture upon animals, rebut them, and watch them become irritable. How dare I humiliate them by explaining that their ‘intelligent’ replies to my explanations are flawed, insipid nonsense.

So, one conversation recently with a female was such. ”I am a meat-eater and that’s my choice.” But it’s not a choice is it, if the animal does not have a choice? If you are going to inflict harm, pain, and suffering on a living being (animal or human) and you do not have the consent of that being (i.e. giving a choice not to be hurt) then choice is not the word. Decision is the word to be used, choice is subjectively onerous when used in the wrong context. The other fallacious reasoning was: ”we will need more land to grow crops in order to feed everyone.” Not so! If we stop feeding 70% of crops to animals and feed the people with those crops, the nee or more land is nil. It takes approximately 10 kilos of grain to produce 1 kilo of meat, depending on which animal.

Equally, concerns over those animals should be raised. Farm animals are intensively bred. Stop intensive-breeding, the animals will eventually die naturally (not overnight) and we can begin to feed-the-world and alleviate the starvation of millions. Of course, getting the selfish, uncaring, dim carnists to cooperate is a major obstacle. Gentle persuasion does not seem to resonate with them, their taste-buds get in the way of any train-of-thought their low intelligence can evaluate. Effectively, they can’t be bothered, completely uninterested, hence the many paltry excuses they offer as justification for their stubbornness.

The other excuse offered to me was: ”we were put on this earth (by who?) as predators.” So I asked ‘are you a wild animal?’ The other factor is this: if killing animals for any reason is justifiable by the claim that we are predators, then it’s a dangerous road to travel. Supporting predation or at least using it as an excuse would mean any predator of any species upon any species is the rule. How is the predatory theory going to work when rapists predate upon men, women, and children? But of course, the carnist only means upon animals, unless one is a carnist rapist, then, well, work it out! Today, a sweet old lady told me of her disgust at Japan’s whaling policy. She was moved to sign a petition! I asked her about the fish she eats, Cod in particular. ”Ah, but it is line caught” she chirped. And that makes a difference does it, I replied. ”But whales are endangered” she said. All animals are endangered if we decimate them, I answered and in any case, it’s not about endangered species, it’s about killing animals!

I know people mean well with their acts of kindness, but the hypocrisy of it makes me view them as very backward in thinking. There is a disconnect in their brain, it’s called cognitive dissonance. Here’s the Wikipedia version: ”

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.[1][2]

In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency in order to mentally function in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance, by making changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance, or by actively avoiding social situations and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance.[1]

In my view, that aptly sums up the blatant ignorance of carnists. The information is put before them both verbal and graphic (although they won’t watch filmed brutality, citing its horror but quite happy to consume it!) and even though the evidence far outweighs their feeble excuses, they still seek to make stupid representations to justify their cruelty. I find that incredibly selfish and uncaring and an insight into the bigoted values of those that would ask that I take them seriously and not view them as sub-humans. Where is their conscience? Why do they put the importance of taste-buds over the brutal torture and murder of billions of animals? Simply, they do not care and frankly, I don’t care about carnists.

11 revisions Unified




When carnists are confronted with their brutal, merciless lifestyle they do several things: ask you about your protein, refer to obscure unproven and ridiculous data and accuse you of killing plants rather than have a look at themselves. If only they would! It is a desperate act of those that cannot logically or rationally give a reason for their behaviour. How do they defend it? It’s hardly a plausible sound-bite to say, ‘’yes, I support cruelty to animals and the eventual killing of them.’’ It does not bode well against the vegan ethic, ‘’I do not harm animals.’’   Don’t be surprised, when illustrating to sub-human carnists, that they will immediately attack your veganism, probably calling you an extremist! They will shift their position from the perpetrator to the victim. Their sub-consciousness tells them that they are uncomfortable with the reality of what they know to be true, but like anyone that is in denial, they will try to offer up a defence. Even where there isn’t one.   There is no doubt that carnists are a confused lot, with no intellectual prowess of note. IQ does not measure knowledge and the components within it. IQ is innate in itself and even though one may have a double-first in rhubarb crumble, it does not prove anything, other than it serves its own existence. Ultimately, the carnist will offer the paltry excuse (and intellectually flawed reasoning) ‘’it’s my choice.’’ It is not a ‘’choice’’ if those you kill do not have a ‘’choice.’’ It is a one-way decision based on selfish desire.



My vegan comrades, the time is fast approaching when we are going to have to make a major decision. Do we continue in our never-ending bubble forever bemoaning the plight of animals, passively asking murdering carnists to stop their brutality, or do we do something positive? We can carry on co-existing with each-other in our bubble of hope whilst trying to (fruitlessly and frustratingly) convince our carnist counterparts to change their attitude towards animals. This is a seemingly impossible task. We are met with derision, contempt and hubris when pushing the vegan concept to them. It’s not that we are ‘preachy’ or ‘holier-than-thou,’ it’s saying: ‘here are the facts, how do you not see it?’ And it is because they don’t, won’t and couldn’t care-less that can lead to raised opinions. I don’t want to spend my life dealing with stubborn, ignorant, uncaring, selfish individuals. That applies to anyone I know. I constantly watch as they consume their merciless ‘food’  knowing the origins and pain, suffering, torture that the animal involved in had experienced before its hideous death. How many times have we witnessed our carnist colleagues buy milk and want to scream out:’ don’t buy it, a calf will die!’ Sharing our lives in a co-existent world with carnists is a problem that will not go away. It would be easy to do it by simply acknowledging that they (the carnists) are sub-humans, however, it is harder to want to live outside of their world, there is nowhere to go in this predominantly cruel carnist environment.

It is why I advocate this perhaps extreme, but not impractical idea. We, vegans, have to find land. We have to buy a country. I’m sure there is a big enough stretch of land not being used as such by a sovereign state that they might feel inclined to relinquish for a fair price. If we have the financial clout to purchase land, we are on the road to success. It’s not simplistic as an ideal, there are many obstacles to overcome in setting up a sovereign-state and too many to go into here, but the overriding point is that we will all live in a world we choose to, without interference from other ideology. It might seem cultist or faddish, it’s not. We are not defined by politics or religion, those arguments are imponderables. Ours is based on real-time evidential proof. Our vegan state would allow us to live the vegan ethic and that is as ideal as it gets. Yes, we would not be completely free of the carnist philanderers. They will continue to destroy the planet in which our country would be ensconced in, but at least we know no animals are being harmed. The environmental issues are secondary to that. As a fully independent sovereign-state, we would have to have rules, an infrastructure, currency and recognition by the UN. We would have to have police and an army. No one can exist in life without protection both intramural and extramural. I don’t say we would kill each-other, police would be there as a deterrent to those that might cause a minor infringement. The army is necessary in a world that has those that would do harm to others.

Unfortunately, having a nuclear deterrent is the key to survival. All the major players in the nuclear industry do not dare engage in hostilities. They might sabre-rattle, embargo or insult, they do not go to war. The non-nuclear states depend on the protectionist favouritism of the big players and so have to comply with the whims and fancies of their dictatorial masters. Having our own nuclear capacity will ensure we are beholden to no one. This is probably anathema to most vegans who see themselves as passive and non-violent. As an ideology it is aesthetically a given, however in this unstable world, expansionist predators exist. To live a vegan living in a perfect idyll would be a journey’s end. In real terms, it cant be when those around us would do harm to our way of life. There are always wars and skirmishes taking place for many and varied reasons. Occupied Tibet has long since been one of those states that have never been allowed to progress naturally due to its Chinese colonists. Conversely, Israel was and is determined to not be intimidated by its neighbours or those that would do her harm. Yes, there are many sub-arguments within her right to exist independently, that is not the argument here. She has had nuclear capability since the 60s and by and large it has kept her safe.

Being realistic, no sovereign state can expect to live in peace without protecting its self or being protected by another state. There may also come a time in the evolution of a vegan state in which it would seek to be a major player in world politics. It would not do to idly stand by and allow the self-destructive course that is already occurring to continue its inevitable end. The argument over animal genocide is not just about animals. Frankly, it is only a cog in the wheel. That it does not seem to be horrific enough to make carnists think about their role in the animal holocaust, then what about their role in destroying the planet. Again, the facts are there, factory farming is the leading cause of all the ills that are killing this planet. Selfishly killing animals for food, selfishly destroying the planet for food, what bit do they not understand! Ironically, the environmentalists are guilty of that destruction, unless they are vegan. Horrific as it may appear, we have to go nuclear. I draw comparisons with mankind’s past to reinforce my thinking. Apart from Oppenheimer’s Manhattan Project’ there has been no atomic/nuclear activity apart from testing. The Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 ensured that a decommissioning of weapons would ensure a safer world, which has worked. Kim Jung Il’s recent antics amounted to nothing and has forced Trump into having ‘talks’ with the pot-bellied superhero. Apart from mishaps at The USSR’s Chernobyl and Japan’s Fukushima, we continue to enjoy the peace and clean energy.

A bigger threat to the world is the gases that are daily emanating from factory farms, destroying the environment and the ozone layer. There is also going to come a time when we vegans will have to consider being the world’s policemen and intervene, by way of just-cause invasion, to prevent the modern holocaust, genocide and superabundant carnage carried-out by rogue carnist states. If I may, I would like to draw on mankind’s brutal past, man’s inhumanity to man and animals and use reference-points as factoring-proof to compound the argument for a nuclear capability for a vegan state. There are many horror-shows from the past, as far back as is recorded. Even The Bible has its wanton killing episodes. If we take the example of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany, fairly recent in historical terms, it is pertinent to the debate. Let us not fool ourselves into believing the massed nations fought Germany on humanitarian grounds! No one said: ‘’Hitler is killing Jews, let’s stop him.’’ The purpose of fighting Hitler’s National Socialist expansionism was solely to prevent his army from occupying those nations not already under Nazi rule. Of course, it was known what was happening to Jews in Auschwitz and Belsen, but it was not for that reason that the WW2 was fought.

When the images of what had been taking place in Germany emerged, it was a shock to the world that it could take place, let alone happen to the degree it did. I would say that on the basis of that, it would have been just-cause to have invaded Germany without any war-threat being offered by Germany. There have been other instances of genocidal massacres in the history of mankind, The Bosnian Serbs genocide in Srebrenica of Bosnian Muslims is one such incident that brought UN intervention. Other incidences have brought no such response, namely Rwanda and Liberia. It’s a case of picking and choosing the ones that deserve favour. What’s apparent is that whilst humans were slaughtering humans, animals too have been slaughtered with no one questioning it. Until that is, vegans brought it into a polemical arena. Once vegans offered the contentious issue that animals are equal, the carnist mentality went into free-fall. The idea that animals are equal to humans is too much for those that believe that animals are food, clothing, furnishings, experiments, entertainment, sport and weapons of war.

Brainwashed springs to mind when explaining carnist mentality, or ignorance and self-denial as a convenience for justification to indulge carnism. Most vegans were at some stage carnists, when confronted with the evidence of animal cruelty, we did the noble thing, to stop supporting it. It takes character and honour to do that, something carnists that know what is happening but refuse to decry, are lacking. I can only call them cowards, selfish, revolting sub-humans that do not deserve to be taken seriously. Most have very low IQs and lack knowledge-based intelligence. Their days are numbered. As exponential growth within the vegan ideal manifests and by definition incremental growth, vegans are going to be a force majeure. Yes, carnists will also be born to carnists and unless we adopt the Herod The Great solution (with a bit of tweaking to include all children of age and not only In Bethlehem) then somehow converting the young is paramount. I envisage that a world that is 50% vegan will have to invade those nations killing animals and equally destroying this planet. I would not say it is imposing our will, it is correcting an injustice, an anomaly, an iniquitous situation that can not be allowed to continue. I don’t see what is complicated about the vegan concept, it’s fairly simple to decipher. Mankind’s journey through the ages has left us with regrets about incidences that should never have happened and the day will arrive when we look upon our cruelty to animals as such a regret. This may take thousands of years to materialise, who knows! What is certain is that vegans will continue to fight for the rights of animals despite the intransigence of the carnist philanderer. I put vegetarians and pescatarians in with them too. One day, it will all click into place and then the whole world will understand what the vegan visionaries of the past saw and understood. Even if we have to nuke those that refuse to comply with a majority view. There will be no place on this earth for savage killers of the innocents, a just-cause, is exactly what it implies.




What is it with carnists! Not content with destroying the planet with their flagrant abuse of animals and its spin-off consequences, they still propagate the same, tired, worn-out propaganda.I’m not sure who it is they are trying to convince. They visit vegan sites accusing vegans of lying and being extremists. I’m not aware that vegans visit carnist strongholds to berate them on their lifestyle. That carnists feel the need to peddle their spurious dogma to the initiated tells me that they have serious doubts on their standing and how they are perceived generally. Mostly it is carnist industry-stooges that perpetuate the myth that animals enjoy pain and suffering. The layman carnist (those that only buy the ‘produce’) has to be the specimen that has to be convinced that hurting animals is fundamentally wrong, in any-way-shape-or-form.

The layman carnist is the specimen that could become vegan if they are given information to enlighten them. Not so the hard-core abuser, those that are so corrupted by their trade they have long-abandoned a sense of decency, humanity, empathy. They are morally redundant, devoid of compassion, motivated by greed and selfish values. They are the slaughterer, the farmer, the butcher, the sportsman, hunter, scientist, entrepreneur, entertainer, researcher and all of these hide within the industries that inflict animal abuse. Whether they be the meat, dairy, fur, laboratory experiment, zoo/circus/theme oriented businesses, sporting pursuits or hunting participants, they all seek to destroy animals for self-gain. If they consider that what they do is a ‘job’ then they need a rethink. Anyone can pick on defenceless animals, with or without weapons and profit from them. Farmers in particular either allow animals to ‘mate’ or artificially inseminate (rape) the victim. Either way, it’s hardly complicated, especially when the brood can be multiples increasing the profit. Dog breeders do virtually the same: throw a couple of animals together then profit by the result. All they have to do is give the minimum attention to the adults and offspring. Any person that exploits animals for gain is lazy. They ought to get a proper job.

If the layman carnist spent more time considering the suffering they are contributing to, instead of being victim to the food industry’s propaganda, they might just understand what vegans see. Instead of attacking vegan pages on social media, brandishing dull and dim slogans, such as: ‘extremists,’ ‘liars.’ they ought to ask themselves; ‘’who is telling lies,’’ ‘’who are the extremists.’’ it would go some way to self-enlightenment. I have seen it suggested by carnist trolls that the film of animals being slaughtered is isolated, that it does not happen in volumes and that it is ‘Hollywood making it up!’ That ‘vegans are extremists because of their views!’ Eh! I’d think to kill 150 million animals daily (estimated) is extreme, not trying to prevent it! Such is the addled brain of a meat-eating imbecile. I really don’t have much hope for the carnist. Stuck in their selfish world of denial, uncaring, uninterested in animal suffering (as long as it isn’t their ‘pet’) and probably not interested in human suffering (as long as it isn’t their bruised big toe). They don’t have a lot going for them.

Unable to debate without throwing obscure, unproven data into the mix, using irrational and hysterical doctrinaire in order to make an invalid line-of-argument seem plausible. I know this, in the unlikely, implausible scenario that a killer injured their self trying to cut the throat of an animal, I would see to the animal first, ensuring it was not at risk. The despicable killer could get on with it, and as a humanitarian, I am appalled I should have to say that. But I have and fuck ‘em!



Who and what are vegans! They are a many-varied lot, one thing you can take as fact is that: they are the good guys. They are the community that stand against cruelty to all animals. Forget all charities that profess to help animals. The RSPCA kill more animals than they rescue and many of the workers eat animals. The RSPCA also give their seal of approval to a dodgy logo that claims ‘’farm animals are humanely treated.’’ I was phoned by the WDC to ask if I would donate to a campaign to bring awareness to the public concerning the animals used as entertainment. In fact, it was a PR company acting on behalf of WDC. I told the operator that I was aware of the problem and then asked him if he was a vegan. He wasn’t. ‘’So, you are giving me a sob story on how these mammals are exploited, yet you eat animals.’’ ‘’Do you not see my point on how I view all animals as being exploited and how I try to get my point across?’’ This is the wall-of-ignorance that vegan activists encounter on a daily basis.

Trying to enlighten the great unwashed is a labour-of-love. I honestly believe that regardless of the IQ of carnists, they are, to-a-man, thick-as-shit! How else can you explain their failure to understand their hypocrisy? Many I speak to say about eating meat: ‘’I suppose it’s closing your eyes to it.’’ Well, yes, that is what you are doing. What is worse and a testament to the abject drivel and failure of their conscience is that they know it! It’s as if they justify eating meat by using that qualification as a default mechanism. So, images of a fluffy dog or fluffy cat undergoing a rescue by the sleazy RSPCA in one of their contrived adverts will have them crying bucket-loads. Show them a fluffy lamb having its throat cut at 6 months old and all they are doing is licking their lips at the thought of spring lamb. And telling themselves it’s food as if the lamb isn’t a living being. I can’t fathom the carnist. Why do they have a disconnect between animals? They willingly bleat about ‘endangered species,’ signing petitions and accusing hunters of being ‘bastards,’ ‘cunts’ and’ murderers.’ Yet vegans see them (the carnists) as the same. What’s the difference! Pulling the trigger or not is irrelevant to the outcome.

Apparently, 85% of carnists could not slaughter an animal. They want to buy it pre-packaged or fresh-dead, perhaps they are gutless (the carnists) or it’s a way of not feeling guilty over the dead animal. Not one carnist can explain, logically or rationally why they eat animals. Instead, they will go on the offensive when ‘preached’ to by vegans. All the tired, meaningless drivel, ‘plants.’ ‘lions,’ ‘Bible’ are thrown as a defensive attack on vegans. All utter shit. It’s not vegans that are killing animals, it’s not vegans sponsoring it. It’s solely the carnist’s problem, so counter-attacking with convoluted, insipid drivel is nonsense. The odious Piers Morgan (complaining about activists in Brighton protesting in a store) suggests, ‘’vegans only care about big animals, what about the insects killed for vegan crops.’’ He is paid to spout that rubbish. All the meat and dairy he consumes and he is fighting for insect’s lives! What I’d really like is a carnist to justify (without the nonsense) why they see animal cruelty and murder as acceptable. Give me one good point that will make me reconsider my vegan ethic. I will watch the horrific films (that they won’t watch) with them and ask them to justify it, in as simplistic a way as possible. The topic-starter is: ‘cruelty to animals is wrong’ with a sub-category; ‘farm animals are not ‘food.’’ Of course, I know they have no defence or point to make. It would be like asking a paedophile to justify ‘kiddy-fiddling.’

I’ve tried with friends and strangers to understand the carnist mentality and I can assure you, a more selfish, shallow collective of dim-wits you’ll be hard-pressed to find. They don’t care. Many vegans ate meat/dairy, the difference is once they saw and knew the facts, their conscience changed their mindset. I did not need convincing, once I saw the truth. Vegans are visionaries, I say that with impunity. We see our world being destroyed by animal agriculture. Ozone depletion, oceans with ‘dead-zones,’ rivers, natural habitats being polluted by factory farm effluence. The dim carnist will continue to be party to the destruction, bleating and complaining when it eventually impacts upon them. The multi-national global monolith foodstuffs industry are too busy making profits to care. If the shit-hits-the-fan, they’ll move on to something else to profiteer from. The vegan movement is the single biggest threat to world-order at this time, with both governments and global monoliths trying to undermine the cause. The vegan is a subject of ridicule and hate across social-media and in general. The vegan knows this, we understand we are compared to Jehovah’s Witnesses and fringe groups such as Scientologists, however, our cause is tangible, we don’t imagine the animal holocaust. It is very real.



 Christmas is upon us once again. That means the seasonal slaughtering of animals is increased to satisfy the demand for ‘Christmas Fayre.’ Turkeys are the worst-affected, with them being identified as a ‘Christmas treat.’ In general, they are not eaten in the same way as pig, cow and chicken and lamb. Depending on the culture that is. We have to factor in fish, horse, kangaroo, goat, dog, cat; ostrich, pheasant, partridge. In this instance, Western Christians will devour (like ravenous predators) tons of meat with turkey being the archetypal oven favourite. The big food-outlets are in-on-the-act with the daily bombardment via media of cosy Christmas montages. M&S, Lidl, Morrisons, Tesco, Co-op along with food-producers are capitalising on the seasonal mass murder of sentient beings.
KFC is in-the-mix with their animation of a chicken seeing-off a turkey. Oh yes, isn’t that hilarious! A wide-eyed girl looks forlornly out of her window at a snow-scape, her thoughts elsewhere. Suddenly there are people on snowmobiles shooting through the air, children carrying presents, she runs out to join in the celebration and in amongst it all, a turkey roasting in the oven. It’s not subliminal-messaging, it’s plain and simple: a cosy, feel-good Christmassy image. Other adverts show the family around the table tucking into carved meats (typically turkey) and laughter and music all blend into one to lure us into that cosy world of anticipation of a good time on its way. Of course, for some, Christmas will be a nightmare and no amount of cynical advertising will alter that fact. What you won’t see in Christmas ads are cigar/cigarette puffing. Those adverts are long gone (from media in general) being considered as inappropriate and unhealthy. Maybe one day the same patriarchs that oversee us will take the same view over the adverts containing animal body-parts. Not only is killing animals detrimental to their health, but it’s also detrimental to ours.





Vegan brothers and sisters, we are in a struggle. The barbarian carnist hordes are upon us, trying to derail our agenda with their filthy, spurious dogma. We must stand together and be strong in the face of such adversity. We are the ‘good guys’ against a repugnant, evil force. Together we shall triumph over the insidious, dark forces of death and destruction. We are vegans, a universal movement that is unified by a common purpose: to end the relentless persecution of animals suffering the most hideous acts of pain and suffering that is inflicted on them by humans.

It is our calling to get the message out there that no civilised society should abuse, torture, murder animals for any reason. We know the path ahead is going to be littered with pitfalls, with the sneering rabble of carnist, malzoan murderers offering pitiful justification for their vile, despicable acts of inhumanity. Fear not brothers and sisters, we have right on our side. Those bastards belong to a dark past. We shall prevail, we shall overcome. Prepare yourselves for the long siege ahead. We are the New World Order comrades. We may be vastly outnumbered by the carnist embryo-sucking parasites, but our numbers grow each day, with the young generation taking a positive role in assuring that veganism is secure for the future and beyond. Each day, as you wake, feel good and safe in the knowledge that we are not harming sentient beings, our conscience is clear and our day will be fulfilled with the glow of having saved lives. Vegan brothers and sisters, it is our clarion-call, it is our purpose, stand firm against the carnist marauders.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.