(A)LF’s Case: Mercy vs. Auschwitz

What the Corporate Meat & Dairy Industry Doesn’t Want You to See

**WARNING: The video included in the following article contains shocking graphic cruelty and violence. Viewer discretion is advised and parents may want to prevent their children from viewing it.

ALF is the accepted acronym for Animal Liberation Front, a radical underground movement opposed to animal cruelty, slaughter, and exploitation. The illegal actions against the industry responsible for these abuses has been controversial and given rise to laws in a few state jurisdictions criminalizing the covert filming of animal cruelty as documented in the video below.

ELF (Earth Liberation Front), ALF, and (A)narchists consider themselves ‘affinity’ groups–meaning they tend to like each other or the cause each represents. Ironically, the Pacific NW (A)narchists spearheading the protests against the federal Grand Jury inquiries/subpoenas into the Seattle May Day street violence have issued ‘fatwas’ against photojournalists who video record/photograph these events (including rallies/vigils) in public venues. Yet, the same elements would be the first to applaud the publishing of police/state violence/abuse or cruelty to animals. In the same breath, they’ll argue (sometimes violently) they’re entitled to prevent their photos from being taken. It’s a given the police and abattoirs don’t either. Each conveniently ignores those guarantees enshrined in the 1st Amendment.

The following video displays ample reason why investigatory photojournalists must be protected:


“Journalism is the printing of what someone doesn’t want published. Everything else is Public Relations.” -George Orwell-

Gary Yourofsky Argues Animal Rights

About admin

Opposed to politicians who equivocate about air quality & BioMassacre
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to (A)LF’s Case: Mercy vs. Auschwitz

  1. suomynona says:

    It’s sad how you don’t seem to understand the anarchists you go on and on about.
    They do not care about the liberties handed out by the masters.
    They wish to liberate all they can by what ever means they see warranted.

    Using the systems own standards against itself is one of those standards.

    All power to those who fight against the masters and expose their atrocities.
    All shame to those who would endanger those who take action against oppression.
    Photojournalist need to liberate themselves from the dogma of the masters.

    Collecting evidence for the oppressors is not noble.
    Orwell fought in the POUM for fuck’s sake.
    Where do you get off ripping one of his quotes out of context like that.

    Whatever great good you think you’re doing, by defending snitches and by snitching.
    You’re not doing it. You only perpetuate the hostility towards the press.

    Why do you think you know what the vandals and the liberators are thinking?
    Let me let you in on a little secret, you don’t.
    If you would put the rights of property above the rights of people, you are a malicious and oppressive person.

    I’m really only engaging with you because I don’t think you’re all that bad, just a little inculcated.

    They powers that be will continue to lay waste to this planet and its inhabitants if people continue to compromise each-others actions.

    Why the hell do you hide your identity?
    Would you get upset if someone was monitoring you doing something justifiable, but technically illegal?
    What about the people who actually liberate those animals and don’t let them get mindlessly slaughtered? Should they have waited to do it legally?
    Or do you think their names and faces of the liberators should have been recorded for the sake of defending photojournalists?

    I urge you to wake up sir.
    We do not live in the dreamlike world you think we do.
    The anarchists are not a threat to the children, the state is.
    The state is a threat to the fucking planet.

    • admin says:

      “Inculcated” is an active verb used with an object, not an adjective. Perhaps you meant ‘indoctrinated’?

      It’s not required to ‘understand’ (A)narchists (or any other group/individual) to photograph them in a public venue. The commons, streets, parks, public venues belong to all, not a select few or subset. An illegal encampment of the homeless in a public park doesn’t transform that park to its ‘private’ backyard. It still belongs to the public. There is no right or expectation of privacy in a public venue. JOURNALISM is not ‘snitching’. Neither is photography in public venues. If someone doesn’t want to be seen/photographed committing a ‘crime’ in public, don’t commit a crime in public. It’s that simple.

      Some have ‘masked up’ (hidden their face and donned black clothing) to obscure their identities. Labeling the press as ‘snitches’ doesn’t alter any of these facts. Failed attempts to evade responsibility/accountability for street crimes doesn’t justify attacking photojournalists. Put simply, in street jargon, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime!

      You’re correct about many (A)narchists caring little about civil rights/liberties. What’s sad is their lack of understanding that the rights of man are not derived from the largess of government or the state, but are endowed by our creator/by virtue of our humanity. These are inalienable and we are born with them. We do not seek/require permission to exercise these rights, we do not plead to be given what is ours–we TAKE it! Our Constitution, where many, but by no means all, of these rights are enshrined is not the ‘source’ of them; instead, it is simply a reflection or codified acknowledgement they exist and guarantee the government will not be permitted to interfere with them. These rights are natural, they are inalienably ours, they are as innumerable as the stars in the heavens. Yes, it IS ‘sad’, sad that a number of (A)narchists don’t believe in the very concept of human or individual rights! Therein lies the rub, the threat to all, and why the vast vast majority of citizens abhor (A)narchists. They recognize a dis-empowered violent would be master as easily as a dominant one.

      “Liberating” all by whatever means ‘they’ see warranted gives rise to chaotic violent conflict culminating in a might-makes-right type of feudalism antithetical to the struggle against hierarchy (A)narchists claim to embrace when those ‘means’ are violent. Ultimately/invariably, the ends do not justify the means because it’s sociologically/politically axiomatic they end up becoming one and the same. Your argument smacks of the war criminal, George Bush, justifying torture because “we had to know what they were thinking.” (alleged terrorists) He was keen on using that old dodge of the ends justifying the means too.

      Yes, forcing the ‘system’ to play by its own rules (in spades!) *IS* a legitimate tactic–one heartily endorsed here. However, that does NOT include violence, torture, theft, vandalism, murder, assault, coercion, blackmail, dungeons, and armed thugs like the system employs. One doesn’t justify Nazi-like behavior with claims to be against ‘Hitler’. That is a tactic traditionally used by the state. It’s known as a red herring.

      At this point, perhaps a brief digression is in order. Some conveniently labeled ‘feminists’ have accused those (A)narchists given to violent street demonstrations as crippled with counterproductive testosterone poisonings–‘manarchists’ they label them. These critics may be onto something. It does appear as though the youthful male (A)narchists are simply too obtuse and full of hormones to be genuinely effective. A better alternative might be for women ALONE to plan whatever street actions are considered and the men consigned/aligned to protecting the women from state violence/arrest. Recent experience in Mason County indicates women, especially older women, are FAR more effective in resisting state violence and corporate exploitation than the men. Let the women, the grandmothers, lead. Protect them. They’re fierce, and have the wisdom to accomplish goals that benefit their community.

      You’re correct in advocating for the exposure of state corruption & atrocities–a daunting task given the secrecy and extent of it. But the corruption in the people is not to be ignored in the bargain. Exposing either or both isn’t ‘endangering’ those who fight against oppression so much as they ‘endanger’ themselves by violating fundamental human rights and civil liberties. e.g. The public’s right to know what transpires in public venues (the commons) belonging to it, having the right to see/hear events there, to note/document/record/photograph/video the same, and to circulate that information to all members of the public. If you wish to push the margins (given, today, we *are* the media!) go underground and document the atrocities, the corruption, the lies like Daniel Ellsburg or Bradley Manning. The public welcomes/respects (by in large) that kind of resistance. It doesn’t endorse vandalism and street violence, the smashing of car/shop windows and damage/destruction of the public’s property.

      What’s truly shameful is the perpetrators of the above violence expecting/demanding innocent friends/associates to sit, indefinitely, in a federal dungeon in order to avoid responsibility/accountability themselves. And to label as ‘snitches’ those (e.g. Leah-Lynn Plante) who break under the torture of solitary confinement.

      Yeah, Orwell fought with the Workers’ Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) during the Spanish Civil War, He also witnessed the Stalinist repression of the movement, substantially contributing to his later anti-authoritarian predilections. Even Trotsky sought to distance himself from them. So? Are you suggesting nobody be allowed to quote Orwell but Orwell? Failing to cite the lengthy history of political intrigues in the Spanish Civil War doesn’t render the quote ‘out of context’–it speaks for itself. What Trotsky & Orwell objected to (violence prone control freaks usurping fringe political movements) repeats itself throughout history. The Pacific NW (A)narchists are no exception. When these violently radical elements succeed, they ultimately destroy the effectiveness of those movements to create meaningful permanent social/political change.

      Photojournalists are simply people. Like (A)narchists, they come in assorted flavors, shapes, sizes, genders, and persuasions. They (per se) don’t need to ‘liberate’ themselves from anyone’s dogma, because that’s not their function. Their function is to serve as the eyes & ears of the public regardless of who objects. In fact, journalism doesn’t belong to the ‘press’, it belongs to the public! (A)narchists aren’t the only ones discomforted by the light of publicity. That’s as it should be. e.g. Amy Goodman was arrested for covering a political event. While Amy’s ‘advocacy journalism’ is respected here, it isn’t implemented here. Demands for it have been lodged. Those demands have been, and will continue to be, rejected. This publication isn’t your ‘advocate’, pal, mouthpiece, comrade, handmaiden, or lawyer. It’s a lens and mirror using modern communication technology as a megaphone to distribute information deemed to be news worthy and/or of interest to the public. Editorial control isn’t up for grabs/discussion.

      Regarding ‘hostility’ towards the press: It’s been said a reporter has no friends–or at least shouldn’t have if they’re any good. Seasoned reporters begin to understand they don’t WANT any ‘friends’, especially while working/covering a story. The mark of a good journalist may well be how much ‘hostility’ they’ve attracted. Illustrations are windows to understanding, consider the following vignette:

      (During a late November, 2011 encounter with denizens at the Occupy Olympia encampment in Heritage Park, a capitol campus WSP officer, Sgt. Zachary, arrived in response to a 911 call. He requested the photojournalist meet him in the adjacent parking lot near the public restrooms where the following recorded conversation excerpt took place.)

      Sgt. Zach: (suddenly snapping to the fact the conversation was surreptitiously recorded) “…Are you recording this?!”

      Reporter: Well, yeah!

      Zach: You didn’t ask for permission.

      Reporter: It’s not required.

      Zach: Well, LEGITIMATE reporters ask!

      Reporter: They can…they don’t HAVE to.

      Zach: (after a brief pause) That’s why nobody likes the press…it’s a matter of trust!

      Sgt. Zachary was quite annoyed. He was also well trained as a WSP officer. He knew the reporter was correct and he deduced the reporter knew it too. Like some (A)narchists, he unsuccessfully attempted to dissuade the reporter by casting aspersions on his ‘legitimacy’. The reporter was too old a dog to be gulled by this ruse. The press has no more ‘rights’ than anybody else–it also has no less! Thus, credentials or ‘approval’ aren’t required, nor is ‘permission’, and more often than not, they aren’t sought–at least here. Anything else would emasculate the term ‘investigatory’.

      The rights to private property is an extension of the rights of the individual. They cannot be so easily bifurcated as you suggest. If you have trouble understanding this, the vast majority of the public does not. It’s an easy explanation of why so few show up for the rallies in front the the Seattle federal courthouse in support of the Grand Jury resisters, even though those resisters are defending a right vital to all citizens. The dearth of support should be interpreted as: “Drop the knife [violence], then we’ll talk.”

      One advantage of ‘dropping the knife’ is you can more easily show your face and enter a dialog with members of your community–OPENLY! It’s not that the public would be persuaded so much by the erudition of their youthful (A)narchists–far from it, but they ARE attractive and more often than not, earnest. People tend to like their children and generally want to indulge or listen to them. Nobody is listening while you, et ux, smash windows/assault journalists–trust me!

      Apparently you’ve only skimmed the gist of the Mason County Blog. It’s doesn’t ‘defend’ snitches, it condemns the violence of self appointed vigilantes and compares them to other violently criminal elements. See http://amicuscuria.com/wordpress/?p=7253 for a graphic illustration of this theme.

      It isn’t necessary to be a mind reader to know or need to know what the vandals and ‘liberators’ you reference are/were thinking. The images captured by photojournalists are replete with graphic examples of their ‘thoughts’. “By their works, ye shall know them.” [sic] Matthew 7:15-7:23

      One doesn’t rob a bank/liquor store, and then argue it was necessary to know what the robber was THINKING! If so, make that argument to a jury of your peers. Predictably, they’ll reject it. You see?–it isn’t the ‘state’ that’s going to take issue with you over such actions–though they may be who hunts you down–it’s your community! Some newbies arrive in this country from other regions where attitudes differ regarding accepted standards for sex with underage girls. They soon learn the more conservative mores of Americans regarding this issue are to be reckoned with. Youthful Pacific NW (A)narchists are in the midst of being taught the same lesson. We, the People, set acceptable standards in law through our elected representatives (at least in theory), not some hare brained disconnected philosophical/political radicals intent on forcing their views on others through vandalism and intimidation.

      Thanks for the vote of confidence (‘engaging’), but hopefully the engagement is or will be with your/our community. Don’t expose yourself to injury by going so far out on a limb, you invite the state to saw it off…because they will. Patience and non-violent methods of resolving conflict are rarely found in our youth. Let the grandmothers lead. They’re smarter than you.

      Regarding ‘monitoring’: Surely you must know privacy is dead? We’re ‘monitored’ now every time we board a bus or enter an intersection. Our overpasses, courthouses, sidewalks, and public institutions are replete with surveillance cameras. Every cellphone now comes with one. It is what it is. You’re not going to hold back the tide by emulating King Knut. Like the press, the police are citizens too and have no fewer rights than anyone else. They have no expectation of privacy in public places. Neither do you. Nor is it even dependent on age. When you’re in public, you’re in public. You can and WILL be photographed. There’s nothing to be done about it. Resorting to crime to make your point will be your undoing. Pointing to the greater crimes of the state will avail you nothing. The strength of democracy will not be realized from the thrust of a spear/flag pole, but the net of non-cooperation and nonviolent civil disobedience. Blunt the force of your attacker by redirecting it, not trying to match blow for blow, else you will fail. The state is burdened by all of its security/armor and weapons. It’s seriously in danger of collapsing under its own weight like the Soviet Union. Take advantage of that eventuality to help replace it with something very different, not a reincarnation of it. The violence local youthful (A)narchists have pursued in opposition to the crimes of the state holds forth no hope for average citizens, therefore, recognizing their own self interests, they provide no support.

      The radical ALF activists have no more right to ‘privacy’ in public venues than the fur shops/vendors who object to photography at events like the Renaissance Fairs. They object to photos for fear of retaliation from animal rights proponents. I don’t agree with the laws prohibiting undercover filming/photography of animal abuse. Were I in a state with such laws, I’d pursue investigatory photojournalism of the atrocities and publish them. If arrested for that act, I’d go to court and defend it. I’d attack the law as unconstitutional. In fact, such a law may be attacked with a suit seeking a declaratory judgment WITHOUT actually requiring the violation of it to achieve standing in court.

      Gutting one inalienable right in pursuit of another is paradoxical at best, idiotic in general. The sharpest sword the public has is the light of truth and publicity. But it’s two edged and, as you point out, cuts both ways.

      Anyone who would sacrifice our children on the violent horns of a dilemma, state, (A)narchists, et ux, *IS* the enemy and a threat to all including the planet itself. Nobody wants to suffocate in the midst of a brawl among ourselves. Today, we face extermination as a species–a crisis that cannot brook the distraction of violence. Thus, the flames must be extinguished to put out the fire. That’s not done with more matches.

      • ashandblood says:

        No great-power has given it up willing without the use of force.
        Your tactics require an appeal to the oppressor.
        An appeal that will not be heard.

        Yes smashing a window will not bring the revolution and other organizing needs to happen, but your reform will not save the children.
        Perhaps it will protect some in this country, but outside the castle walls the government will slaughter and pillage as they always have.

        I’m not going to further justify actions to you. For I need not justify these actions.

        You are using the etymologies and philosophies of the oppressors and thus have been pacified.
        You can do what you want, but you are accountable for your actions.
        The laws, the institutions, and your morals, do not matter so long as you oppress and push people into the sights of the oppressors.

        Representative democracy is designed to keep a small elite in charge while the rest only feel they have a say in what happens.
        Why do you think the electoral college exists?

        Furthermore I think most people would want to see everyone fed and the houseless housed, but that’s not going to happen.

        And furthermore it’s not that there is an expectation of privacy, but of knowing a security risk is out there and one whose ethics are not complete shit. The only reason people are addressing you is in order to have a dialogue with you and perhaps make you see reason.

        I don’t care about supposed rights or definitions.
        I care about oppression and liberation and exploitation.
        The “inalienable rights” were designed to preserve the status of white land owning men and are a flawed concept.

        Rights themselves are a human abstract and once defined they can be abused. I urge you to see reason. We are not on opposing sides. You wave the flag of a nation in pursuit of life and liberty and I wave the flag of no-nations in pursuit of total liberation.

        The tip of the iceberg you see is not the whole of it. There are thousands of collectives in the PNW alone. Each individual has their own ideas about what anarchy is and has their own praxis.

        I do not wish for any being to be enslaved, exploited, or oppressed.
        The logic that humans freedom is more important than the rights of property is why there is starvation and why our species is at risk.

        This is not mindless violence. These are targeted strikes.

        No one has to get hurt, but if the oppressor refuses to give up control then perhaps elbowgrease is necessary.
        You speak so ill of the hormone ridden teenagers.
        And claim it is the testosterone that is fueling them.
        Your claim is that of a male chauvinist.

        Complete non-violence requires the rulers and the masses to have hearts. Perhaps the masses do, but the rulers do not. And even if the masses do they are sedated by their consumption they have drunk deep.

        Where and when has a movement or a revolution happened through non-violent means? How can we stop the war machine and those who lay waste to our environment? By walking in the street? By not giving them our name? By being their slaves in prison?
        What then once we are locked up or living in a clandestine manner?
        How are we to change anything?
        The elections change nothing save for minor reforms at a pace that in not sufficient.
        I may help to reform in the short term, but honestly how will things be changed?
        The third parties are too scattered to pull any real support together and even if they did they’d just perpetuate this plutocracy that got us into this mess in the first place.
        Talking of rights does nothing, sure the state does not give rights to those that attack it.
        And perhaps the community has a right to know whose causing this disturbance within it, but truth is not dictated by that masses.
        If that were the case Saddam Hussein would have been directly responsible for 9/11.
        It is not an attack on the press.
        It is an attack on those who would serve the oppressors.

        Metaphors are not accurate arguments.
        Violent and nonviolent are not the issue.
        What rights people have and what rights they don’t have is not the issue.
        Slavery or liberty is the issue.

  2. umm? says:

    “Anyone who would sacrifice our children on the violent horns of a dilemma.”
    Why do you think anarchists are endangering children?

    • admin says:

      ‘Children’ in the sense of youthful progeny, not necessarily minors. When foolish direct actions lead to militarized FBI thugs in body armor with automatic weapons drawn throwing grenades into a peaceful residence while bashing down the door with a battering ram, THAT puts the children living there at risk, maybe? Criticizing those who encourage such risk for little/nothing isn’t condoning/welcoming/collaborating with their oppressors; it’s wanting our youth to remain healthy, alive, strong, and AVAILABLE…none of which is possible in a prison cell, hospital, or morgue. Without them, our future is lost and we have no hope. It, historically, has ALWAYS been the youth who suffer the most immediate and egregious injuries during the struggle for social justice. They should not be foolishly sacrificed or exploited because they haven’t developed the patience/common sense of how to protect themselves while engaging in the struggle.

      It’s true, there’s a great dilemma/debate over how to extricate ourselves from the maw of an all powerful and grotesquely violent beast without assuming many of the characteristics of the monster itself. Some justify the violence they adopt as a tactic by arguing the monster we created won’t simply go away without being physically attacked and destroyed.

      Even, for sake of argument (which premise I don’t accept), if we were to agree this is true, the timing is wrong and the end result will resemble that of the children sent during the Crusades to war in the Holy lands in the naive belief their innocence and God would protect them. One doesn’t gouge the bear’s eye with a stick unless the stick is longer than the bear’s arm.

      Rather, (to use a metaphor) be like Perseus using the homeless and poverty as your mirrored shield to slay the once beautiful Gorgon raped by her corporate suitors. Be fleet of foot with your winged sandals by avoiding set piece battles doomed from the outset. Shroud yourself with the helmet of invisibility; invest in your mind that you be not deceived. Let the light of truth be your sword. Finally, in your efforts to slay the Medusa, beware of new terrors that will spring forth for its potency lies in the severed head inasmuch as the Gorgon was made out of the terror, not the terror out of the Gorgon. The head is but a mask.

      “I have seen the enemy…and it is US!” -Pogo-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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