EO: Bearing Witness in the Hell of Speciesism

by Randy Shields / December 11th, 2022

Once upon a time Dostoevsky wrote a passage in The Idiot (1868) about an abused donkey passed from owner to owner which inspired Robert Bresson’s classic 1966 film Au Hasard Balthazar.

Polish film director Jerzy Skolimowski, 56 at the time, watched the Bresson film and it became the first, last and only movie that ever made him cry.

Now, at age 84, Skolimowski and his co-writer and wife Ewa Piaskowska give the world EO, a partial homage to Au Hasard Balthazar and the most broad-based attack on speciesism in a feature film. EO is making plenty of audiences cry.

The title character EO is a small gray big-eyed Sardinian donkey (played by six different donkeys) who begins the film in a Polish circus and ends up in Italy. Animal protection legislation puts the circus out of business and splits up EO and his beloved human co-performer Magda which starts a worse series of events as no humans will take responsibility for EO unless they can exploit him/her. (Right with the times we don’t know if EO is a he or a she, although with six donkeys that definitely qualifies as a “they.” I’m going to refer to EO as a female in this article.) This sweet beast of burden is always looking for a friend – a horse, a human, a junkyard dog – and is frequently used to facilitate the enslavement of other animals.

There are echoes of Koyaanisqatsi and White God (a girl and her dog) in EO (a girl and her donkey) and the sensibility is very much like Okja (a girl and her pig) and Gunda. Stylistically, though, EO is the anti-Gunda: Gunda’s black and white minimalistic, music-less, human-less barnyard is replaced by a pulsating soundtrack, a slew of villains seen and unseen, great distances across Europe, tunnels, forests, windmills and mountains. Striking images of EO on a hillside at sunset, lost in a forest at night and standing on a small arched bridge in front of an enormous dam/waterfall and looking into the maelstrom will linger long after viewing.

When showing animal abuse on screen a director’s challenge is to keep people watching without overwhelming them. It’s a truism that many people are “too sensitive” to watch films of animal abuse but not sensitive enough to stop paying for the brutality, terror and injustice that goes into every piece of meat or a fur coat. Skolimowski skillfully navigates this by not showing most of the violence but simply showing the fear of the animals or letting us hear the violence. This will be a small comfort to many but I didn’t see anyone walk out of the movie.

After the circus folds EO is shipped to an equestrian center where a majestic white horse, tethered in an indoor riding ring, runs in circles with less freedom than a hamster on a wheel. EO accidentally knocks over a display case of equestrian trophies and is then shipped to a petting zoo where she’s ridden by special needs children. EO is visited one night by Magda who brings her a carrot muffin for her birthday. As Magda dances in the moonlight, thinking about the old days of the circus, we’re sure of EO’s love for her but Magda seems lacking as she obeys the commands of her jealous (of EO) boyfriend to leave and never sees EO again. The patriarchy is always seamlessly woven into speciesism. (See Green Paradise Lost by Elizabeth Dodson Gray or The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol Adams.)

Seeking Magda and escaping the petting zoo, EO walks through a Jewish cemetery, reminding us that there are all kinds of holocausts although only someone like Isaac Bashevis Singer can get away with comparing them: “In their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might makes right.” (Enemies, a Love Story.) And: “For animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.” (The Letter Writer.) For different but similar slaveries, see Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison.

EO then enters a forest at night but she’s out of place. Beautiful immersive cinematography by Michal Dymek follows fast and furious: a close up of a web-spinning spider, a swimming frog, an owl treating EO as an intruder. There are foxes and, hair-raisingly, howling wolves. Will the wolves attack EO? No, actually, because Satan’s minions are here too: green lasers from rifles start flashing throughout the forest like a rave and hunters begin blowing away the wolves.

EO then comes upon a soccer match and is made an unwilling mascot by the winning team and later beaten with 2 by 4’s by the losing team. In a broken bloody heap, EO seems to be dreaming of a robot dog moving through the grass, techno progress contrasted with a deficit of ethical progress. The human gods will try their damndest to recreate something that moves and performs like a real animal (almost exclusively to repress other humans) but they won’t treat real animals with even rudimentary respect.

(The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is currently torturing monkeys in his neuralink experiments. Fuck anyone who would attempt to “help” by torturing. George Bernard Shaw summed up Elon Musk a long time ago: “Any race of people who would use something as barbarous as animal experiments to ‘save’ themselves would be a race of people not worth saving.” EO stumbles into just about every setting of animal abuse except a vivisection lab.)

EO’s next stop is pulling a cart on a fox fur farm while a worker throws dead foxes into it. Skolimowsky doesn’t show the anal electrocution of the foxes but he does show their terror as each of them watch others being killed. The worker commands an unwilling EO to move and bends over behind her and gets kicked in the throat, definitely knocking him out and possibly killing him. The instant karma delivered to this speciesist brute is one of the rare feel good moments in the movie. Fuck the working class torturers too.

After an incredibly sure-footed and gripping 75 minutes or so the film loses its intensity with the introduction of many more humans, much more human dialogue, much less EO, a scene of random human violence at a truck stop and a countess (Isabelle Huppert) getting frisky with her priest stepson which seems like another movie altogether. Maybe with another viewing I’ll understand these puzzles. The strength of most of the film is that any dummy can get it.

I was expecting the film to do justice to EO’s character and struggles by building to a monumental emotional intimate denouement focused on EO’s last moments but, unlike Au Hasard Balthazar or Gunda, the movie pulls back emotionally, visually, artistically, politically.

A blurb after the film ends says no animals were harmed in the making of it. I’m against using animals in films but if directors are going to take advantage of its “legality” – and deliver pro-animal messages – they are able to simulate violence, suffering and death a la Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Amores perros.

(Some viewers will dispute that the film pulls back but your reviewer believes in seeing the captive bolt pistol, the futile attempts to escape the kill box, the expression in the eyes as the light and life goes out, the throat-slitting, the dismemberment and turning of innocent beings into blasphemous nothingness – and spiritual terms are correct because EO and Balthazar and all the other non-humans are being crucified every day. “Completely humble, completely holy,” said the great Bresson about his donkey Balthazar. That’s how a film would do justice to the life and character of EO – after all, the audience has come all this way, let them walk now — or explode their prejudices and reveal their complicity as they’re mortified in their seats. They should be bawling their eyes out. It’s a war – act like it.)

EO is the perfect guide through Skolimowski’s inferno but the film is not perfect. It is, however, the most comprehensive non-documentary attack on animal exploitation ever filmed. Despite its flaws, EO should be seen, applauded and promoted.

After a December 4 screening at the Laemmle Royal in Los Angeles, Skolimowski and Piaskowska discussed the film, saying it was “made out of love for animals and nature” and likening it to a “protest song.” The film does seem like the cry of an 84-year-old man sick to death of the cruelty in the world although he isn’t (yet?) vegan, or even a vegetarian, saying, “We reduced our meat consumption by two thirds and half of my crew stopped eating meat entirely.” And: “Do we really need to have bacon every morning?” No, my man, no more than we need to eat donkey every morning.

Despite my uneducated impertinent quibbles, EO has won many awards: Cannes Jury Prize, Cannes Soundtrack Award, New York Film Critics Circle Awards Best International Film and European Film Awards Best Original Score. Rotten Tomatoes critics rate EO as 96% fresh and the film is Poland’s Best International Feature submission for the 2023 OscarsFacebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Randy Shields can be reached at music2hi4thehumanear@gmail.com. Read other articles by Randy, or visit Randy's website.

Scapegoats and Holy Cows: Climate

Activism andLivestock

BY STEPHEN CORR 

COUNTERPUNCH 

DECEMBER 10, 2021Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Until recently, Greta Thunberg kept a filmed appeal to stop eating meat and dairy as the first item of her twitter account: she’s been a vegan for half her life, so that’s not surprising. Her message begins with pandemics^[1] but swiftly segues to climate change, as might be expected. The film was made by Mercy for Animals, which she thanks.^[2]

The film remained top of her twitter account for months. She has several million followers, so the value of the advertising she gave this little-known not-for-profit must run into millions of dollars. As opposition to livestock has become a major plank in climate activism, it’s worth looking at how the world’s biggest climate influencer chooses to influence it.

Greta Thunberg’s 2021 Mercy for Animals film: “If we don’t change, we are f***ed.”

Mercy for Animals is an American NGO with the stated purpose of ending factory farming because it’s cruel to animals, a fact with which few would disagree. There are other reasons to shun food from factories as opposed to the open air of course, not least because some of the meat it produces is subsequently heavily processed with unhealthy ingredients and then shipped long distances. The reason it remains so profitable is obviously because its meals are cheap and those who can’t afford expensive free range or organic have little other option.

There is no doubt that factory farming is an industrial process which pollutes. There’s also no doubt that an average Western, especially urban, diet contains a lot of unhealthy things, including too much meat. But whether or not folk who eat sensible amounts of local, organic meat and dairy, and try to stay fit and healthy, would have any significant impact on the planet’s climate by changing their diet is another matter, which I’ll come back to.

Mercy for Animal’s beliefs go much further than opposing animal cruelty. It believes in speciesism or rather anti-speciesism, the idea that humans have no right to impose their will on other animals or “exploit” them. It’s a view shared by a growing number of people, especially vegans in the Global North. Thunberg goes as far as believing that only vegans can legitimately, “stand up for human rights,” and wants non-vegans to feel guilty.^[3] Even more radical is Google founder, Larry Page, who reportedly thinks robots should be treated as a living species, just silicon- rather than carbon-based!^[4]

Whatever novel ideas anti-speciesists think up, no species would evolve without favouring its own. Our ancestors would never have developed their oversized brains if they hadn’t eaten scavenged or hunted meat, and we have always lived in symbiosis with other animals, sometimes to the benefit of both. It seems likely that the wolf ancestors of dogs freely elected to live close to humans, taking advantage of our hearths and ability to store game. In this, the earliest proven instance of domestication, perhaps each species exploited the other.

Having visited many subsistence hunters and herders over the last half century, I know that the physical – and spiritual – relationship they have with the creatures they hunt, herd or use for transport, is very different to that of most people (including me!). Most of us now have little experience of the intimacy which comes when people depend at first-hand on animals for survival.

Hunters, for example, often think they have a close connection with their game, and it’s based on respect and exchange. A good Yanomami huntsman in Amazonia doesn’t eat his own catch but gives it away to others. Boys are taught that if they are generous like this, the animals will approach them to offer themselves willingly as prey. Such a belief encourages strong social cohesion and reciprocity, which couldn’t be more different to Western ideals of accumulation. The importance of individual cows to African herders, or of horses to the Asian steppe dwellers who, we think, started riding them in earnest, can be touchingly personal, and the same can be found all over the world.

Everyone knows that many small children, if they feel safe, have an innate love of getting up close and personal to animals; and projects enabling deprived city kids to interact with livestock on farms can improve mental wellbeing and make children happier.^[5]

This closeness to other species is a positive experience for many, clearly including Thunberg: her film features her in an English animal sanctuary and cuddling one of her pet dogs. Those who believe speciesism is of great consequence, on the other hand, seem to seek a separation between us and other animals, whilst paradoxically advancing the idea that there is none. Animals are to be observed from a distance, perhaps kept as pets, but never “exploited” for people’s benefit.^[6]

Mercy for Animals doesn’t stop at opposing factory farming. It’s against the consumption of animal products altogether, including milk and eggs, and thinks that all creatures, including insects, must be treated humanely. Using animals for any “work” that benefits people is frowned on. For example, it thinks sheepdogs are “doubly problematic” because both dogs and sheep are exploited. It accepts, however, that they have been bred to perform certain tasks and may “experience stress and boredom if not given… work.” It’s also (albeit seemingly reluctantly) OK with keeping pets as they are “cherished companions with whom we love to share our lives,” and without them we would be “impoverished”. Exactly the same could be said for many working dogs of course.^[7]

Anyway, this not-for-profit believes that humans are moving away from using animals for anything, not only meat, but milk, wool, transport, emergency rescue, and everything else. It claims, “several historical cultures have recognized the inherent right of animals to live… without human intervention or exploitation,” and thinks we are slowly evolving to a “higher consciousness” which will adopt its beliefs. It says this is informed by Hindu and Buddhist ideals and that it’s working to “elevate humanity to its fullest potential.”^[8]

We all exalt our own morality of course, but professing a higher consciousness than those who think differently casts a supremacist shadow. The alleged connection with Indian religions is a common argument but remains debatable: the sacredness of cows, for example, is allied to their providing the dairy products widespread in Hindu foods and rituals. The god Krishna himself, a manifestation of the supreme being Vishnu, was a cattle herder. The Rig Veda, the oldest Indian religious text, is clear about their role: “In our stalls, contented, may they stay! May they bring forth calves for us… giving milk.” Nearly a third of the world’s cattle are thought to live in India. Would they survive the unlikely event of Hindus converting to veganism?

Krishna tending his cattle.

Most Hindus are not wholly vegetarian. Although a key tenet of Hindu fundamentalism over recent generations is not eating beef, the Rig Veda mentions cows being ritually killed in an earlier age. The renowned Swami Vivekananda, who first took Hinduism and yoga to the USA at the end of the 19^th century and is hailed as one of the most important holy men of his era, wrote that formerly, “A man [could not] be a good Hindu who does not eat beef,” and reportedly ate it himself. Anyway, the degree to which cows were viewed as “sacred” in early Hinduism is not as obvious as many believe. The Indus Civilisation of four or five thousand years ago, to which many look for their physical and spiritual origins, was meat-eating,^[9] although many fundamentalist Hindus now deny it.^[10]

Vegetarians are fond of claiming well-known historical figures for themselves. In India, perhaps the most famous is Ashoka, who ruled much of the subcontinent in the third century before Christ and was the key proponent of Buddhism. He certainly advocated compassion for animals and was against sacrificial slaughter and killing some species, but it’s questionable whether he or those he ruled were actually vegetarian.^[11]

Whatever Ashoka’s diet included, many Buddhists today are meat-eaters like the Dalai Lama^[12] and most Tibetans – rather avid ones in my experience – and tea made with butter is a staple of Himalayan monastic life. Mercy for Animals however remains steadfast to its principles, asserting, “Even (sic!) Jewish and Muslim cultures are experiencing a rise in animal welfare consciousness.”

Mercy for Animals might look at how racists have supported animal rights over the last hundred years, sometimes cynically and sometimes not: “Concern for animals can coexist with a strong strain of misanthropy, and can be used to demonise minority groups as barbaric, uncivilised and outdated… in contrast to supposedly civilised, humane Aryans… The far right’s ventures into animal welfare is sometimes coupled with ‘green’ politics and a form of nature mysticism.”^[13]

Mercy for Animals was founded by Milo Runkle, a self-styled “yogi” who lives in Los Angeles. He was raised on an Ohio farm and discovered his calling as a teenager on realising the cruelty of animal slaughter. He’s now an evangelical vegan who believes an “animal-free” meal is, “an act of kindness.” He’s also a keen participant in the billion-dollar, Silicon Valley industry trying to make and sell “meat and dairy” made from plants, animal cells and chemicals. He’s a co-founder of the Good Food Institute and sits on the board of Lovely Foods. Like others in the movement, he rejects the term “fake” and insists that the products made in factories – which are supported by billionaires like Richard Branson and Bill Gates – are real meat and dairy, just made without animals. The multi-million dollar Good Food Institute is also supported by Sam Harris, a U.S. philosopher who came to prominence with his criticism of Islam, which he believes is a religion of, “bad ideas, held for bad reasons, leading to bad behaviour,” and constitutes, “a unique danger to all of us.”^[14]

Survey: Kids think farm animals deserve same treatment as pets

By HealthDay News

Children think farm animals should be treated more like people and pets, and they're less likely than adults to think it's morally acceptable to eat animals, according to a study conducted in Britain. 

Photo by Jai79/Pixabay

Life would be much better for farm animals if children were in charge, a new British study suggests.

Unlike adults, children believe farm animals should be treated the same as people and pets, and children are less likely to view eating animals as morally acceptable.
The study included 479 people in England from three age groups -- 9-11, 18-21 and 29-59 -- who were asked their views on the treatment of pigs on farms, pet dogs and people.

The results suggest that "speciesism" -- giving different value to different animals -- is learned during adolescence, according to the authors of the study.

"Something seems to happen in adolescence, where that early love for animals becomes more complicated and we develop more speciesism," said study co-author Luke McGuire, of the University of Exeter.

The researchers also found that as people age, they are more likely to classify farm animals as "food" rather than "pets," while children are equally likely to include pigs in either of these categories.

"It's important to note that even adults in our study thought eating meat was less morally acceptable than eating animal products like milk," McGuire pointed out in a university news release. "So aversion to animals -- including farm animals -- being harmed does not disappear entirely."

People's relationship with animals is "full of ethical double standards," according to McGuire. "Some animals are beloved household companions, while others are kept in factory farms for economic benefit. Judgments seem to largely depend on the species of the animal in question: dogs are our friends, pigs are food."

While changes in attitudes are a natural part of growing up, the "moral intelligence of children" is also valuable, McGuire said.

"If we want people to move towards more plant-based diets for environmental reasons, we have to disrupt the current system somewhere," he suggested.

RELATED Monoclonal antibody for arthritis in cats receives FDA approval

"For example, if children ate more plant-based food in schools, that might be more in line with their moral values, and might reduce the 'normalization' towards adult values that we identify in this study," McGuire said.

The results were published this week in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

More information

The benefits of ethical farming are outlined by the Ethical Farming Fund.

Copyright © 2022 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

The Universal Kinship by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862
https://archive.org/details/theuniversalkinship-jhowardmoore/page/n9/mode/2up

Topics animal rights, speciesism, sentiocentrism, utilitarianism, ethics, philosophy, evolution, Darwin, speciesism, utilitarianism, ethicsCollection opensourceLanguage English


In this work, J. Howard Moore advocates for the recognition of a kinship between humans and nonhuman animals, and a universal application of the Golden Rule as an ethical framework towards the treatment of all sentient beings. The evidence for this kinship is detailed in three sections: the physical, the psychical and the ethical.


Based on this edition of the book, published in 1906 by Charles H. Kerr & Co¸ Chicago (public domain).


Cover art: The Entry of the Animals into Noah's Ark by Jan Brueghel the


ONE OF THE EARLY WORKS ON ANIMAL LIBERATION, LIKE MANY OF TODAY'S ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS MOORE WAS AN ACTIVIST VEGETARIAN, TODAY HE WOULD BE VEGAN, LIKE PETA.



Why I Am a Vegetarian: An Address Delivered Before the Chicago Vegetarian Society
by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862
https://archive.org/details/whyiamavegetarian/page/n3/mode/2up
Publication date 1895
Topics vegetarianism, ethics, utilitarianism, animal rights
Publisher Chicago: Frances L. Dusenberry
Collection opensource
Language English


Brochure of an address given by J. Howard Moore to the Chicago Vegetarian Society on the benefits of and reasons for being a vegetarian. 



The Unconscious Holocaust
by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862

https://archive.org/details/theunconsciousholocaust-jhowardmoore/page/n1/mode/2up

Publication date 1897-02-01
Topics ethics, animal rights, vegetarianism
Publisher Western Health Reform Institute
Collection opensource
Language English
Source: Good Health, Vol. 32, Iss. 02


MOORE WAS A SOCIALIST AND ATHEIST
https://archive.org/details/thesourceofreligion/mode/2up









Ethics and education
by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862
https://archive.org/details/cu31924031243318/page/n5/mode/2up
Publication date 1912
Topics Ethics
Publisher London, G. Bell & Sons

Better world philosophy; a sociological synthesis
by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862
https://archive.org/details/cu31924030226165/page/n9/mode/2up


NO BOOK COVER, BROADSHEET LIKE
 ANTI IMPERIALIST PAMPHLET ON THE PHILIPPINES

America's apostasy
by Moore, J. Howard (John Howard), b. 1862
https://archive.org/details/americasapostasy00moor/mode/2up
Publication date 1899
Topics Imperialism, United States -- Colonial question, Philippines -- History Insurrection, 1898-1901, Philippines -- Politics and government 1898-1935
Publisher Chicago? : Chicago Chronicle
Collection uconn_libraries; blc; americana
Digitizing sponsor University of Connecticut Libraries
Contributor University of Connecticut Libraries

Language English

Paul Watson Green Conservative

Yep that's right I did not misspell Conservationist. Because he ain't. He is a self professed conservative who views humans as expendable.

Hmm we have heard of this somewhere before haven't we? Something about some Volk being more equal than others.....Scratch an animal rights activist and you find a fascist. Like Bardot. Darling of Stormfront and the White Wacists.

Bardot wrote "My homeland, my earth, is again invaded, with the blessing of successive governments, by an overpopulation of foreigners, notably Muslim." She called Le Pen "a very fine man" in her best-selling autobiography.


In Watson's Green fascism it's the planet that is 'Lebensraum' and the Volk for Watson are all the creatures on the earth, with the exception of those who suffer from species chavuinism, and guess who they are.....don't believe me well lets hear from the good Captain.....


Rejecting the Cultural Justification for Slaughter
Let me see, for defending whales, we are anti-Japanese, anti-Norwegian, anti-Icelandic, and anti-Native American. For defending seals, we are anti-Canadian, anti-Norwegian, anti-Russian, and anti-Namibian. For defending trees, we are anti-Hispanic and anti Native American, oh yes, and anti-working class. It appears that loggers who make four times the average income of an environmental activist are working-class and the lower-paid activists are viewed as wealthy. You see, when you work without pay because you feel that the entire future of the planet is at stake, this is viewed as a luxury. In other words, environmental activists have the luxury of sleeping in trees and not owning a home, a car, or recreational vehicles.

Clarification on Where Director Paul Watson Stands on Various Issues

I long ago decided that for this planet to be saved, we have to step outside the paradigm of anthropocentrism and adapt a ecocentric perspective.

A ecocentric perspective does not allow for consideration of special interest groups of human beings whose actions threaten the biosphere. The interests of the biosphere take precedence over the interests of hominid special interest groups.

Racism and Sexism for example are social issues but they are not issues relevant to the survival of the biosphere. They don't sit around the SPLC and the NACCP and discuss species protection and clear cut forestry issues. People don't go to feminist and gay rights meetings to discuss air pollution and wolf re-introduction programs. These issues have their place within the social environment of one species but they are not relevant to the rest of the citizens of the biosphere. Thus I believe that the role of an environmental organization is to discuss and act on environmental issues independent of human social issues.

I also don't believe that racism is relative to the ecocentric world. There is only one race that I recognize and that is the human race and racism is a form of behavior caused by abstract and nonsensical prejudices among members of the same species. No intelligent person can be a racist because it makes no ecological or biological sense. I have found it interesting that when I maintain that all humans are equal and all members of one species that some find this statement racist because I refuse to see any distinctions between people based on skin color or features.

I think that speciesism is a far more serious issue. Human discrimination against practically every other species on this planet has resulted, is resulting and will continue to result in mass extinctions, extirpations and diminishment. Whereas racism is acknowledged, speciesism is not even given a moment's thought by most people. It is willfully and arrogantly ignored.

I am first and foremost a conservationist and this means that I am a conservative. But being a conservationist conservative has no relationship to the present perversion of political conservatism - like this particular right wing Christian fundamentalist Republican rhetoric that is presently posing as conservative.

He condemn's himself in his own words, while he denies those who oppose him the same rights to free speech as he demands.

And those who think that this is the first time he has been criticized by the Anarchist Left well read on;

ECO-WARRIOR OR ECO-TERRORIST?

Pie Paul Watson?

At a joint Sea Shepherd and Jack Metcalf news conference yesterday, far right-wing racist Jack Metcalf complained that the civil rights of Sea Shepherd had been violated by the Makahs. This is the same Jack Metcalf that has spent a lifetime seeking to deny civil and human rights to people of color. The same Metcalf who, while in the Washington State Assembly, stated that "Black people are genetically incapable of governing themselves." The same Metcalf that the ACLU gave a 0 rating on his voting record on civil rights in Congress. To Metcalf, and others like him, rights only belong to rich white men.

A CERTAIN CALL FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR THE MAKAH

And even better even the Vegans can see Watson for the racist fascist he really is.

Jun12

the knee-jerking that must end

Posted in race |

As to Paul Watson’s article, I’m unsure why the EF!J even printed it. Was it because Mr. Watson has achieved legendary status among Earth First!ers? Surely it wasn’t to prove that radical environmentalists aren’t racist. It would have been different if Watson used the space provided to renounce his past decisions, but instead he spends hundreds of words explaining how unapologetic he is for supporting the messed-up policies of groups like SUSPS. While Watson starts off by saying that he is unaware of any anti-immigration sentiment in the organizations he supports, he then goes immediately into explaining the negative costs of immigration. Yes, we need to question what roles humyn populations play throughout the world, but what questions are asked, who is asking them, and who feels entitled to answer? White Supremacy tells us to focus on overpopulation and to stop it through forced sterilization, refusal of health care, genocide, destruction of ecosystems, and other forms of violence. As someone who sees no need for (and has no respect for) centralized governments, I don’t understand anti-immigration sentiment. Borders are nothing but imaginary political boundaries. When we begin to look at why people take daily risks to cross those militarized boundaries (and why those in power prefer to keep them militarized) we can begin to understand why our population grows that 1.3 percent each year.

Watson comes from a tradition that sees Humans as expendable. Long live the Earth. The Nazi's to popularized this peasant belief in the sacredness of the land over the people, as the Land and Blood movement that later resurfaced as the right wing rump of Green Politics in the 1990's in Germany.

In fact the Green movement is not originally left wing, it arises out of isolationism ala the America first ideology of Buchanan and Nadar.

In England it appeals to the social reformers who would legislate against prostitution, fallen women, alcohol, etc. rather than addressing the real cause of the social problems, capitalism.

Darker shade of Green

Far-right attempts to influence the British Green movement take three forms. Firstly, an authoritarian strain in the environmental movement has proclaimed the need for a centralised and strongly 'eco'-policed state, since the publication of Garrett Hardin's 1968 essay 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. Immigration, seen as threatening the ecological carrying capacity of a country, should cease. Population must be cut, by coercion if necessary. Social issues such as homelessness and poverty are seen as a distraction from the essential job of tackling the environmental crisis. In Britain, this strain dominant in the environmental movement of the early 1970s has waned considerably. It is represented by the Campaign for Real Ecology and eco groups disillusioned with the Green Party, with an ideology rooted in the pessimistic conservatism of Malthus. Far from overtly racist, despite some frankly repellent views - neither can this conservative environmentalism be seen as a fascist movement - it is clearly positioned on the statist right.
Eco-fascism also has a lengthy lineage in Britain. The Soil Association, Britain's organic lobbyists, counted amongst their earliest members Jorian Jenks, former agriculture advisor to the British Union of Fascists. AK Chesterton, first Chairman of the National Front, was closely linked to far-right environmentalism of the 1930s. His uncle GK, Catholic apologist and purveyor of the Father Brown stories, invented the ideology of Distributism with Hillaire Belloc. Distributism, proclaiming the principle of 'three acres and a cow', seen as a 'third way' between capitalism and communism, drifted into the anti-semitic sphere before becoming the inspiration behind the modern remnants of the Front. Issues of Distributist newsletters in the 1950s advertised support for car free cities, decentralisation, the racist League of British Loyalists and Rudolf Hess.

Click here for my Seal Hunt Articles


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
seals, Watson, anti-seal, hunting, Bardot, whales, Sea, Sheperd, EF!, vegan, vegetarian,

First Tool Usage in Wild Gorillas Discovered

Our relatives are evolving. Like to hear how Creation Science, Intelligent Design, and all the other theistic deniers of evolution explain that.

One small step for Leah is a giant leap for wild gorillas
Now, for the first time, scientists have observed and photographed wild gorillas using tools, including the moment Leah - the nickname used by scientists - used a stick to test the depth of a pool before wading into it. Until she wielded her wading stick in a swamp, all other species of great apes, including chimpanzees, bonobos and orang-utans, have been observed using tools in the wild, but never gorillas. "This is a truly astounding discovery," said Dr Thomas Breuer of the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig."Tool usage in wild apes provides us with valuable insights into the evolution of our own species and the abilities of other species. Seeing it for the first time in gorillas is important on many different levels," Thomas Breuer, lead researcher of the Wildlife Conservation Society, said in a statement. On two separate occasions in the northern rain forests of the Republic of Congo, researchers observed and photographed individual western gorillas using sticks as tools, according to the study.

No need to postulate the existence of Intelligent Design or some disembodied God in the evolution of the species. The cognition of our nearest relatives, is being influenced over the centuries as they 'discover' and 'adapt' tool making.

The outrage is that they are still being poached and killed for their land, as meat, for their pelts, and in war zones like Rawanda. They are still treated as 'dumb' animals as native peoples were treated as 'savages'. 'brutes' by European colonialism.

Like the impact of Imperialism on indigienous peoples, the Gorrilas are subject to the effects of Speciesism in their mountain regions.

And speciesism is a result of the monotheistic dictum that Man is Created in the image of God (singular, male) and has dominion/domination of all the fish, fowl and beasts of the planet.

Let's note here as well that it is a FEMALE gorilla that has made this discovery. Tool making is not neccasarily a MALE occupation or discovery, This is also astounding in its obviousness and in the obvious obliviousness that male scientists have to this fact. Like our ancient ancestors being discovered around the world, most fossils are of women, not men. From 'Lucy' to Our Lady of Flores

Which should tell you something about evolution, that it develops along matrilinear lines, in other words it is matriarchical rather than patriarchical. And last time I checked ALL monotheistic religions in the modern world are Patriarchical, and deny that they had any social predecessors, especially a matriarchical/matrelinar one

Let us remember too that tool making is the most significant factors in human evolution of cognition. It reflects the role that labour had in moving from ape to hominid to homo sapiens..

The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man
Frederick Engels 1876
Many hundreds of thousands of years ago, during an epoch, not yet definitely determinable, of that period of the earth's history known to geologists as the Tertiary period, most likely towards the end of it, a particularly highly-developed race of anthropoid apes lived somewhere in the tropical zone -- probably on a great continent that has now sunk to the bottom of the Indian Ocean. [1] Darwin has given us an approximate description of these ancestors of ours. They were completely covered with hair, they had beards and pointed ears, and they lived in bands in the trees.

First, owing to their way of living which meant that the hands had different functions than the feet when climbing, these apes began to lose the habit of using their hands to walk and adopted a more and more erect posture. This was the decisive step in the transition from ape to man.

All extant anthropoid apes can stand erect and move about on their feet alone, but only in case of urgent need and in a very clumsy way. Their natural gait is in a half-erect posture and includes the use of the hands. The majority rest the knuckles of the fist on the ground and, with legs drawn up, swing the body through their long arms, much as a cripple moves on crutches. In general, all the transition stages from walking on all fours to walking on two legs are still to be observed among the apes today. The latter gait, however, has never become more than a makeshift for any of them.

It stands to reason that if erect gait among our hairy ancestors became first the rule and then, in time, a necessity, other diverse functions must, in the meantime, have devolved upon the hands. Already among the apes there is some difference in the way the hands and the feet are employed. In climbing, as mentioned above, the hands and feet have different uses. The hands are used mainly for gathering and holding food in the same way as the fore paws of the lower mammals are used. Many apes use their hands to build themselves nests in the trees or even to construct roofs between the branches to protect themselves against the weather, as the chimpanzee, for example, does. With their hands they grasp sticks to defend themselves against enemies, or bombard their enemies with fruits and stones. In captivity they use their hands for a number of simple operations copied from human beings. It is in this that one sees the great gulf between the undeveloped hand of even the most man-like apes and the human hand that has been highly perfected by hundreds of thousands of years of labour. The number and general arrangement of the bones and muscles are the same in both hands, but the hand of the lowest savage can perform hundreds of operations that no simian hand can imitate-no simian hand has ever fashioned even the crudest stone knife.

The first operations for which our ancestors gradually learned to adapt their hands during the many thousands of years of transition from ape to man could have been only very simple ones. The lowest savages, even those in whom regression to a more animal-like condition with a simultaneous physical degeneration can be assumed, are nevertheless far superior to these transitional beings. Before the first flint could be fashioned into a knife by human hands, a period of time probably elapsed in comparison with which the historical period known to us appears insignificant. But the decisive step had been taken, the hand had become free and could henceforth attain ever greater dexterity; the greater flexibility thus acquired was inherited and increased from generation to generation.

Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones that had undergone special development and the ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.

Should Harming Mother Earth Be a Crime? The Case for Ecocide

By Reynard Loki ***

April 26, 2024
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Stop Ecocide International logo



The destruction of nature might one day become a criminal offense adjudicated by the International Criminal Court.

On December 3, 2019, the Pacific island state of Vanuatu made an audacious proposal: Make ecocide—the destruction of nature—an international crime. “An amendment of the Rome Statute could criminalize acts that amount to Ecocide,” stated Ambassador of Vanuatu John Licht at the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) annual Assembly of States Parties in the Hague. He was speaking on behalf of his government at the assembly’s full plenary session. “We believe this radical idea merits serious discussion.”

Since then, the idea has become less radical: Amid the intensifying global climate emergency, interest has been mounting among nations and diverse stakeholders—spanning international bodies, grassroots organizations, and businesses—that ecocide be formally recognized as an international crime, joining the ranks of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, which are the four core international crimes established by the Rome Statute of the ICC. These crimes are not subject to any statute of limitations.

Environmental activists are pushing to elevate the concept of ecocide—literally, the “killing of the ecosystem”—as the fifth international crime to be adjudicated by the ICC. If it becomes a reality, those who commit environmental destruction could be liable to arrest, prosecution, and punishment—by a fine, imprisonment, or both.

The European Union, in February 2024, took a step in the direction of criminalizing cases that lead to environmental destruction and “voted in a new directive” that makes these crimes comparable to ecocide, according to Grist. “The new law holds people liable for environmental destruction if they acted with knowledge of the damage their actions would cause.” The article adds that environmental crime is the “fourth most lucrative illegal activity in the world, worth an estimated $258 billion annually,” according to Interpol, and is only growing with each passing year.

Ecocide proponents want laws being pushed across various international organizations and government agencies to cover the most egregious crimes against nature, which could ultimately include massive abuses to the living environment, such as oil spills, illegal deforestation, deep-sea mining, mountaintop removal mining, Arctic oil exploration and extraction, tar sand extraction, and factory farming. British barrister and environmental lobbyist Polly Higgins defined ecocide as “extensive damage… to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished.”

Ecosystem Services: Existential and Economic Value

Healthy, functioning ecosystems provide a wide range of services to humanity and all life on Earth that are essential for the sustainable management and conservation of natural resources. These services can be categorized into four broad categories.

Provisioning Services: Healthy ecosystems provide food and water for humans and nonhuman animals, timber for building, and fiber for clothing and other industries.

Regulating Services: These services control conditions and processes, such as climate regulation, water purification, and pollination. Wetlands, for instance, purify water by filtering out pollutants, while forests help regulate climate by absorbing carbon dioxide.

Supporting Services: These services are necessary to produce all other ecosystem services. Examples include nutrient cycling, soil formation, and primary production. Soil organisms contribute to nutrient cycling, and the soil supports plant growth.

Cultural Services: Humanity obtains numerous non-material benefits from healthy ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. Parks, beaches, and natural landscapes provide opportunities for recreation and relaxation, while cultural heritage sites offer historical and spiritual connections.

Ecosystem services are crucial for human well-being, economic prosperity, and societal development. To ensure that we continue to enjoy these services, we must protect ecosystems from the destructive harm of unsustainable exploitation. Ecocide laws can provide this protection.

War in Ukraine: Ecocide by Russia

Ukraine is seen as a “trailblazer” in pushing for recognizing ecocide crimes “within the realm of justice.” This thinking has especially gained momentum since Russia’s attack on the nation in February 2022, leading to the war on Ukraine being seen as a site of ecocide. On April 16, 2024, environmental, climate, and energy experts gathered at Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest in Middlebury, Vermont, for a panel discussion titled “Criminalizing Ecocide: Lessons From Ukraine in Addressing Global Environmental Challenges.” The event centered on the significant ramifications of Russia’s environmental transgressions in Ukraine within the broader scope of global environmental justice.

The panelists—including Marjukka Porvali from the European Commission (a specialist in environmental policy with a focus on Ukraine); Jojo Mehta, the co-founder of Stop Ecocide; Bart Gruyaert, project director at Neo-Eco Ukraine; and Anna Ackermann, a climate and energy policy analyst—discussed establishing legal precedents to prosecute the gravest offenses against nature, promoting a cultural shift toward taking environmental issues seriously, and navigating a fair transition—while responsibly utilizing critical resources for reconstruction.

The Ukrainian government “has [also] argued for using…[international criminalization of ecocide] as a tool to hold individuals accountable for environmental destruction in wartime.” Their call increased in the summer of 2023 when Russia destroyed the Kakhovka Dam, which not only killed people but also caused the spread of chemical pollution in the area.

Protecting the Future of Life on Earth

In 2017, Higgins and Mehta founded the Stop Ecocide campaign. Overseen by the Stop Ecocide Foundation, a charitable organization based in the Netherlands, the campaign is the only global effort to exclusively focus on the establishment of ecocide as an international crime to prevent further devastation to the Earth’s ecosystems. “Protecting the future of life on Earth means stopping the mass damage and destruction of ecosystems taking place globally,” states the Stop Ecocide Facebook page. “And right now, in most of the world, no one is held responsible.”

Vanuatu’s bold proposition was the first time a state representative made an official call for the criminalization of ecocide on the international stage since 1972 when then-Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme made the argument during his keynote address at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.

“The immense destruction brought about by indiscriminate bombing, by large-scale use of bulldozers and herbicides is an outrage sometimes described as ecocide, which requires urgent international attention,” said Palme in his address. “It is shocking that only preliminary discussions of this matter have been possible so far in the United Nations and at the conferences of the International Committee of the Red Cross, where it has been taken up by my country and others. We fear that the active use of these methods is coupled by a passive resistance to discuss them.”

The Failure of the Paris Climate Agreement

That passive resistance to discussing the immense destruction of nature at the hands of humanity has largely continued. Though nearly 200 nations signed the Paris Agreement in 2015—designed to avoid irreversible climate change by limiting global warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius—the countries’ commitments are not nearly enough. As they stand, the promises put the Earth on course to heat up between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius above the historic baseline by 2100.

Although the Paris Agreement mandates the monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions, it lacks the authority to compel any nation to decrease its emissions. Considering this shortcoming, the landmark agreement has been a failure. This failure inspired more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries to sign a “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” declaration in January 2020. Another 2,100 scientists have signed it as of April 9, 2021.“An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis,” the scientists warned.

Society did not heed the warning: Two years later, in 2022, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels reached a record high.

“A 100 countries say they are aiming for net-zero or carbon neutrality by 2050, yet just 14 have enacted such targets into law,” Carter Dillard, policy director of the nonprofit Fair Start Movement and author of Justice as a Fair Start in Life: Understanding the Right to Have Children, wrote in the Hill in April 2022.

“[T]he Paris Agreement, which itself allowed for widespread ecological destruction, is failing,” said Dillard, whose organization supports the emergence of smaller families not only to tackle environmental degradation but also to establish “fair starts” for the children born today who have to face the prospect of growing up on a rapidly deteriorating planet. “Meanwhile, in real-time, global warming is already killing and sickening people and damaging fetal and infant health worldwide,” Dillard wrote. “Maybe it’s time for a rethink and a deeper approach.”

A Broken Legal Framework

One deeper approach would be to protect the natural environment through the legal system since, as the Paris Agreement has shown, non-binding commitments that are not subject to possible punishment and remain unfulfilled are ultimately meaningless.

Higgins pointed out the illogical state of our current legal system, which shields perpetrators of crimes against nature: “We have laws that are protecting dangerous industrial activities, such as fracking, despite the fact that there is an abundance of evidence that it is hugely harmful in terms of carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, and the catastrophic trauma it can cause communities that are impacted by it.”

“The rules of our world are laws, and they can be changed,” she said in 2015. “Laws can restrict, or they can enable. What matters is what they serve. Many of the laws in our world serve property—they are based on ownership. But imagine a law that has a higher moral authority… a law that puts people and planet first. Imagine a law that starts from first do no harm, that stops this dangerous game and takes us to a place of safety.”

Ecocide Movement Growing

While the ecocide movement was dealt a blow when Higgins died in 2019 after a battle with cancer, it picked up speed, aided not only by Vanuatu’s proposal but also by high-profile supporters like French President Emmanuel Macron, who said, “The mother of all battles is international: to ensure that this term is enshrined in international law so that leaders… are accountable before the International Criminal Court.”

Environmental protection is becoming more of a concern among the general public, many of whom take a dim view of elected leaders’ inaction. According to a 2024 CBS News poll, 70 percent of Americans favor government action to address climate change. Half of Americans believe that it is a crisis that must be addressed immediately. Almost a quarter of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions come from the industrialized destruction of natural landscapes to support agriculture, forestry, and other uses to support human society. By criminalizing widespread environmental destruction with no remediation, ecocide laws can be a vital tool in dealing with the climate crisis.

A 2024 Conservation in the West poll revealed a deep-seated worry about the environment’s future among two-thirds of voters across eight Western U.S. states. Their concerns ranged from low river water levels and loss of wildlife habitat to air and water pollution. Interestingly, the survey found that 80 percent or more of these voters support the idea of energy companies bearing the costs of cleaning up extraction sites and restoring the land after drilling activities. This view is not far from the belief that environmental destruction should be treated as a criminal offense.

Meanwhile, three-quarters want the U.S. to generate all of its electricity from renewable sources within 15 years, according to a poll conducted by the Guardian and Vice in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. In December 2020, as world leaders marked the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged every country to declare a “climate emergency.”

The general public is warming to the idea of criminalizing the destruction of nature, with more than 99 percent of the French “citizens’ climate assembly”—a group of 150 people randomly selected to help guide the nation’s climate policy—voting to make ecocide a crime in June 2020.

“If something’s a crime, we place it below a moral red line. At the moment, you can still go to the government and get a permit to frack or mine or drill for oil, whereas you can’t just get a permit to kill people because it’s criminal,” said Mehta. “Once you set that parameter in place, you shift the cultural mindset as well as the legal reality.”

“The air we breathe is not the property of any one nation—we share it,” Palme said in his 1972 address. “The big oceans are not divided by national frontiers—they are our common property. … In the field of human environment there is no individual future, neither for humans nor for nations. Our future is common. We must share it together. We must shape it together.”

Greta Thunberg called for a shift in our legal system regarding the environment. “We will not save the world by playing by the rules,” said Thunberg, who has become the face of the international youth climate movement. “We need to change the rules.”

Ecocide Laws Moving Through European Parliaments

In February 2024, the Belgian parliament passed a revised penal code endorsing the punishment of ecocide at national and international levels. This landmark decision makes Belgium the first European nation to acknowledge ecocide within the realm of international law.

“Belgium is now at the forefront of a truly global conversation around criminalizing the most severe harms to nature and must continue to advocate for the recognition of ecocide at the International Criminal Court, alongside genocide,” said Patricia Willocq, director of Stop Ecocide Belgium. “In order to fully protect nature, it is necessary that those that would willfully destroy vast swaths of the natural world, in turn causing untold human harm, should be criminalized.”

Scotland may follow suit. On November 8, 2023, Labour Member of the Scottish Parliament Monica Lennon introduced a proposed ecocide bill in the Scottish Parliament that could lead to substantial penalties for those found guilty of the large-scale destruction of the environment, potentially resulting in up to 20 years of imprisonment. If passed, it would establish Scotland as the first country in the United Kingdom to implement strict consequences for environmental damage.

Lennon initiated a consultation that was set to conclude in February 2024. The government responded by confirming that Circular Economy Minister Lorna Slater would discuss the proposed measures with Lennon. Following the conclusion of the consultation phase on February 9, 2024, the bill now needs the backing of at least 18 parliamentary members to advance to the next stage.

“Thousands of overwhelmingly supportive submissions have been received from members of the public and institutions in the space of just four months and Greens Biodiversity Minister Lorna Slater has now written indicating her government’s support,” reported John Ferguson, political editor of the Sunday Mail, on March 24, 2024.

“This is a promising development and I welcome the Scottish Government’s support,” said Lennon. “Ecocide law is emerging around the world in a bid to prevent and punish the most serious crimes against nature. My proposed bill to stop ecocide in Scotland is gaining widespread support, and this encouraging update from the Scottish Government is a boost to the campaign.”

The Case for Ecocide Laws

If implemented, ecocide laws would protect ecosystems and preserve biodiversity, an essential element for maintaining healthy ecosystems that support all life forms, including humans. These laws would safeguard natural habitats, reduce environmental damage, and significantly mitigate climate change by preserving carbon sinks like forests and curbing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial activities.

Critically, enshrining ecocide as a crime would hold individuals and corporations accountable for environmental harm, promoting a sense of justice and responsibility in interacting with the natural world. Enforcing laws against ecocide also encourages sustainable practices and resource management, fostering a more harmonious relationship between human activities and the environment over the long term.

Together, these reasons reflect broader efforts that stretch across disciplines and activist frontlines—from environmentalism and nature rights to social justice and the law—toward sustainable development, conservation, and responsible stewardship of the planet for current and future generations. Part of that stewardship is eradicating “institutional speciesism,” cultivating ecocentrism, and seeing our place in the natural world in the context of the entire planetary ecosystem—as one species among a multitude of interdependent species.

Philippe Sands, a lawyer who is a member of a panel launched in November 2020 to draft a definition of ecocide and who has appeared before the ICC and the European Court of Justice, told the Economist in 2021, “My sense is that there is a broad recognition that the old anthropocentric assumptions may well have to be cast to one side if justice is truly to be done, and the environment given a fair degree of protection.”

This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

*** REYNARD IS THE NAME GIVEN A FRENCH FOX CHARACTER WHO IS A TRICKSTER

LOKI NORSE GOD OF CHAOS ALSO A TRICKSTER