Politics of Animal Emancipation

Animal movement should shift paradigm and cease repeating mistakes. (book – 40 chapters)

Free Persons in Sierra Nevada
Free Persons (of globally mostly enslaved taxa) in Sierra Nevada de Merida, Venezuela.

1. Universal Emancipation
2. On the Vital Need for Self-Criticism
3. Consistent Animalism
4. Are “Human[ist] Rights” really Exclusively “Human?”
5. How to End Evil Products
6. The Challenge of Dialogue
7. Humanist Supremacism is not Your Friend
8. Emancipation beyond Master-Slave Morality
9. The Nazicentric Condition
10. Diplomats for Universal Personhood
11. Supplanting the Terminology of Supremacism
12. Beyond Chemical Materialism
13. Personhood, Citizenship and Equality
14. Animals for Ethical Treatment of People
15. The Failure Fallacy
16. The Question of Distraction
17. The Problem of Bisected Ontology
18. Understanding Diversity Denial
19. The Art and Science of Iconoclasm
20. Delineating Abuse
21. Understanding the Shoah
22. Understanding Cyclical Emancipation
23. Rethinking Commercial Communications
24. The Supermarket of Good and Evil
25. The Question of Law
26. The Question of Violence
27. The Trajectory of Salvation
28. The Question of Ethical Articulation
29. The Façade of Evil
30. Understanding False Confidence
31. The Supremacist Structure
32. Understanding Prejudice of the Present
33. The Second Veil of Prejudice
34. Rethinking Multiculturalism
35. The Next Paradigm
36. Nurturing Intellectual Diversity
37. How to Tell the Truth Right
38. The Re-Appropriation of Anti-Racism
39. Symptoms vs. Causes
40. Rethinking Environmentalism

1. Universal Emancipation

This book is about universal emancipation. Everyone who is sentient is a natural person. Every natural person should be legally entitled not to be owned by someone else. As you are a natural person, you should be legally recognized and treated as such. Every natural person should be legally entitled to citizenship. Every citizen should be legally entitled to individually equal treatment in the state where she is a citizen or legally resides.

2. On the Vital Need for Self-Criticism

Since the liberation movement for the benefit of persons arbitrarily categorized as “non-humans” so far in each country has relatively few major political achievements to point to, it has generally been difficult for the movement to even superficially discern which communication measures are effective and which ones are not. It is generally assumed that the movement’s relative lack of strategic political success is due to the considerable political and economic strength of its corporate adversaries. Little thought is devoted to the distinct possibility that the liberation movement itself is largely to blame for its own lack of success in failing to devise persuasive and structurally sophisticated political argumentation that would have the desired ethico-political effect. The relative lack of major success indicates that there is much room for and indeed substantial need for improved communications strategies.

The current discursive predicament in the movement indicates a somewhat naïve and simplistic view of how Human languages function, including and especially in perpetuating oppression. This state of things is largely due to an exaggerated interest on the part of many leaders in the movement in clinging to intrinsically supremacist philosophies, including those of Tom Regan and Peter Singer, at the expense of deconstruction specifically and critical theory generally. While it is certainly important and necessary to expose the baseless metaphysics and Humanist supremacist foundations of traditional philosophy as did thoroughly Jacques Derrida, the scientific discipline devised, designed and geared for critical understanding of oppression per se is the field of critical theory and not the field of philosophy.

The movement needs to scientifically question, measure and evaluate everything it does and everything it says to ensure that there are effective external and internal communications. Most professional practices can and need be constantly and perpetually improved, including professional communications, but this requires in this particular case constant multidisciplinary critique from many different angles and systematic documentation and evaluation of all practices, discursive and otherwise in the movement. Self-criticism and quality control are almost absent in a movement that tends to be very conservative with regard to the choice of both discursive strategies and specific argumentation. The problem and fallacy at work is quite simple; the movement assumes that its strategies for external communications are right because its cause is just. Of course, there is not necessarily any such intrinsic connection. However, the much needed paradigmatic change starts with rational self-criticism and a genuine willingness to accept the fundamental necessity of substantial and constructive transformative critique from within the movement.

Any public relations specialist would tell you that in order to communicate effectively with the general public, you must have a few, positive, simple message points that the audience can readily identify with without too much thought. No one knows what “animal rights” really are because this is a particularly vague phrase without well-defined content. The movement and its two official poster philosophers have not produced an accepted non-anthropocentric declaration and catalogue of freedoms and entitlements as this has proven very difficult to conclusively articulate, considering the immense bio-diversity at hand. It really does not make sense to have one set of “declaration” for the supremacist category or so called “humans” and one for everyone else as if the others constitute a social or organic group in any meaningful sense in the sense of their being different from “humans.” This would be comparable to having a separate “declaration” of entitlements for “sub-humans” since the a-word [animal] in practice fulfills almost exactly the same linguistic, ideological, technical and legal function as did “Untermenschen” during the Shoah (Holocaust), in practice a sort of convenient supremacist lumping of those “classified” as intrinsically “inferior.” Derrida was thus right in pointing out the need for new terminology in the movement.

The movement needs to go three steps beyond Gary Francione’s one-demand anti-enslavement abolitionism and demand (1) legal recognition of universal personhood, (2) citizenship for all sentient persons and (3) non-discrimination based on respecting individual capacity, individual potential and individual limits and irrespective so of zoological classification such as race. Since no one doubts that this is practically applicable to Humans, there is no reason to assume that this should not apply to non-Human persons as well. Citizenship for everyone is a universal political demand that is easy to identify with and this should also be the key demand of the person liberation movement since everything else the movement desires to achieve actually follows from citizenship whether directly or indirectly. Of course, not everyone is capable of exercising every civil right, an infant citizen certainly is not, but s/he is still an inviolable citizen and this should apply to everyone, including those very persons classified by anthropocentric supremacists as “not Human.”

Those who ask for too little also receive too little. The person liberation movement needs to present demands that in themselves do not discriminate against or discursively segregate those on whose behalf the movement advocates by maintaining a baseless dichotomy between so called “humans” and everyone else. However, making great demands such as asking for citizenship does not preclude making small demands as the value of political diversity within the movement needs to be affirmed and recognized. However, the a-word needs to be re-appropriated by liberation advocates in the sense that those of us who already are legally granted personhood should proudly refer to ourselves as Animals in different kinds of political and artistic contexts and may even add names of other taxa as our personal names as has been historically done in many cultures, including famously among many Native American peoples. Thus, to be effective, the movement and its intellectuals need to make every effort to bring down the intrinsically harmful, yet unfounded political dichotomy between the supremacist category and everyone else and this starts at home within the movement. Once this is initiated on a significant scale, our advocacy can become truly universal and individually apply to all.

3. Consistent Animalism

While it is true that anthropocentric philosophers tend to resist animalism, the zoologically undisputed scientific understanding that all sentient persons have something profoundly categorically in common and that this commonality is the mysterious phenomenon of sentience and from which follows that it is therefore profoundly unscientific to divide the broader sentient community into “humans” and “non-humans” as indeed practiced by both Nazi-Aryan supremacists and Humanist supremacists.

While the Person Liberation Movement is animalist in theory, this is hardly so in practice as the movement tends to uncritically accept a metaphysical binary with the supremacist category posed in intrinsic opposition to the “non-humans” (i.e. sub-persons) who are still somehow indirectly construed as intrinsically “inferior.” Oppression of “non-humans” in modern society tends indeed to be intrinsically predicated on this unfounded, unscientific and socially constructed dichotomy.

The evidence of this among us is that when the Person Liberation Movements advocates for “animal rights”, they actually refer to “non-human” rights and this implies acceptance of Humanist supremacist privileges from which the “non-humans” are all arbitrarily structurally excluded since these “natural” rights denied to members of what is known as so called “nature” are considered exclusively “human.” It is therefore crucial that the a-word is used in contexts that resist structural oppression of “non-humans” rather than perpetuating this unthinking dichotomy and that it conversely be avoided in contexts where this choice of terminology perpetuates the structural and legal condition of bisecting anti-body oppression.

It also does not make sense that principles, liberties and privileges (“rights”) for “humans” and “non-humans” are thus bisected and advocated separately by different organizations since this philosophical Apartheid division in practice constitutes endorsement of Humanist supremacism. The Person Liberation Movement is thus very much discursively complicit in the very oppression which it seeks to end as movement activists tend to remain quite biased towards exclusive privileges of so called “humans.”

Clearly, Person Liberation Movement discourses that perpetuate genetic supremacism are not exactly helpful to the cause of ending anti-body oppression (physionomism) generally. What is thus needed is articulation of inclusive political discourse that seeks to balance the interests of sentient natural persons generally with non-sentient taxonomic collectives with which we Sentients do share this planet Earth. These interests are also not dichotomously opposed, but rather highly mutually intertwined and interdependent.

The fact that not all sentient persons are capable of exercising all specifically ascribed freedoms and entitlements (and this is so among Humans as well) does not mean that yet other sentient persons should be denied freedoms and entitlements that they as a matter of fact are individually quite capable of exercising. What is ethico-politically required is thus a very different discursivity, one that represents a clean break with bisecting supremacism. Many in the Person Liberation Movement then retort; almost by default that no one else defends the interests of “non-human” persons, so they must focus on this.

However, what instead the movement must do is to insist that supremacist advocates of ostensibly exclusively “human” needs, do change terminology and renounce both genetic supremacism (racism) and anti-body prejudice (physionomism) as has been done with many other forms of anti-body oppression (physionomism). Organizationally separate advocacy specifically for interests of particular zoological categories would only be philosophically acceptable from the perspective of consistent anti-racism once this is part of a broader non-segregated universal discursive framework of political axioms that do not structurally or otherwise exclude “non-human” persons from the general ethico-political calculus of national and international politics. Rather than an ever-extended barely secularized Christian metaphysics, this axiomatic framework needs to be something quite different and distinctly non-metaphysical, something tout autre.

4. Are “Human[ist] Rights” Really Exclusively Human?

While in no way endorsing Humanist supremacism and its prejudicial, bisecting, taxonomically racist rhetoric, let us take a careful look at which “human” privileges of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be exercised by many or all “non-human” persons and which ones cannot. The term “human rights” is misleading since most of these ascribed privileges (28 articles out of 30 total) are personal needs that are shared with many or all “non-human” persons. I have marked below which articles of the declaration can be exercised by some or all “non-human” persons and which ones cannot due to present cognitive and technological limitations. Only 2 out of 30 articles can thus be functionally described as exclusively “human” and this is in one of the two cases more due to the wording than the issue at hand.

Article 1. Applies to many “non-human” persons

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4. Applies to all sentient persons

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5. Applies to all sentient persons

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7. Applies to all sentient persons

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9. Applies to all sentient persons

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10. Does not apply to “non-human” persons

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11. Does not apply to “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12. Applies to all sentient persons

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18. Applies to many “non-human” persons

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. Applies to many “non-human” persons

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24. Applies to many “non-human” persons

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27. Applies to many “non-human” persons

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28. Applies to all sentient persons

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29. Applies to all sentient persons

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Applies to all sentient persons

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

5. How to End Evil Products

The predominant ethico-political question of Human supremacist enslavement, incarceration and murder on a vast worldwide scale in the agro-industry is easier to resolve than is conventionally assumed by most activists and intellectuals in the Person Liberation Movement, although it requires technological and economic means in addition to rhetorical and philosophical ones that have for the most part not yielded the ethico-politically required outcomes.

Individual veganism and all consumption of industrially processed vegan products, including by non-vegans, is critically and strategically important because it creates a rapidly expanding international market for ethical vegan products that can eventually supplant evil foods and evil products generally. It is thus from a political and strategic, vegan point of view more ethical to consume industrially processed vegan foods than maintaining a vegan diet that does not include industrially processed vegan foods. It is similarly in this sense more ethical to buy vegan footwear that in terms of quality as well as visually is indistinguishable from leather shoes (or even better) as opposed to shoes that may look “plastic” or textile.

Many non-vegans regularly consume industrially processed vegan food products; such consumers include especially non-vegan so called self-described “vegetarians” of various kinds (Humans who don’t eat meat but who consume various other Animal products), Orthodox and traditional Jews, the lactose intolerant, those allergic to the evil lactic products, and weight- and health-conscious persons, especially younger and youthful females. The fact that many ethnic communities of particular genetic origins have significantly higher degrees of lactose intolerance is especially significant from a strategic political point of view. Together, these consumer categories make a significant and increasingly important economic ethical contribution towards the development of vegan products that can eventually supplant evil foods and other evil products as companies that produce vegan products tend to use much of their revenues for research and development to continually improve their particular products as well as introduce new ones.

Orthodox and traditional Jews do not mix meat and dairy ingredients in their diet and usually wait at least six hours after eating food containing meats before consuming dairy products, including products with extremely little dairy content, such as those with microscopic residues left in processing machines and kitchen equipment. For this reason and to simplify things in the kitchen, many Orthodox Jewish families increasingly supplant meat and dairy products with vegan industrially processed foods that are sensorially indistinguishable from evil foods. Organized kosher product certification in countries with major Jewish populations is also extremely helpful in the sense that it encourages food industries to drop non-vegan ingredients so as make their products more easily compatible with kosher cooking. Modern Orthodox rabbis tend to hold ethical vegans in extremely high esteem and when personally asked, often describe vegans as ethical role models for the future as Modern Orthodox rabbis also tend to believe that veganism together with Zionism is part of the beginnings of the messianic age. There is thus more than one reason why vegan food products tend to be more readily available in places around the world with major Jewish populations, including Israel.

Not seeking to find creative political ways to dialogue and align with the diverse political world of Jewish organizations is thus one of the greatest strategic failures of the Person Liberation Movement, considering that major US Jewish organizations do have access to top-level political decision-makers in the US and around the world in ways that the Person Liberation Movement certainly has not. It is also indicative of the broader failure of the Person Liberation Movement in not seeking to devise creative discursive strategies to befriend potential strategic political allies across civil society. There are similarly many other potential political partners in civil society for the Person Liberation Movement.

Telling consumers to change their diets and consumer habits generally is in itself insufficient for fully ending production and consumption of evil foods and other evil products, but is critically helpful in further stimulating the rapidly growing international vegan product market. While vegan food products may be delicious without resembling evil foods visually as well in taste, fragrance and texture; those vegan products, food and otherwise, that are capable of passing stringent blind tests and double blind tests in the sense of being indistinguishable in sensory character from evil products are hence far more strategically important and instrumental in a political sense. Such stringent testing may also include presenting a panel with vegan only or non-vegan only products and ask them to tell which ones are evil and which ones are vegan. Such indistinguishable products already exist in a number of fields, both food and non-food, including indistinguishable products corresponding to evil products such as meat, fur, leather and dairy products.

Those who forcibly breed, raise, incarcerate and sell sentient natural persons for murder certainly do not do so out of idealism or moral principle, but for mere economic gain only. The problem of evil products is thus primarily an economic issue and should hence be resolved by economic means. When the British parliament abolished plantation slavery in its Caribbean colonies in 1833, they did so by financially compensating the plantation owners. Thus, the question of evil products may be less an issue of public advocacy than of identifying a level of financial compensation that would be generous enough to be acceptable to industrial producers of evil products as well as not too high so as to be economically acceptable to governments committed to identify and implement cost-effective ways to halt global warming.

The appropriate level of financial compensation is no less and no more than twice the market value of the mostly rural industries that produce evil ingredients and predominantly evil products. Some of the industries that produce evil products and their respective lobbyists might potentially even be ready to lobby together with the Person Liberation Movement so as to secure a lucrative phase-out, buy-out package with a compensation level of twice the international market value. This is a particularly cost-effective, even cheap way for governments to reduce global warming and is virtually irresistible for agro-industries that produce evil products and whose owners after all, are only interested in money. The warning example of Zimbabwe also clearly shows the significant danger of putting major farmers out of business, no matter how justified by a partial ethical calculus and hence the case for a pragmatic buy-out that is perceived as generous and extremely financially attractive from the point of view of the agro-businesses that systematically steal the non-vegan ingredients of evil products from sentient natural persons through enforced breeding, enslavement, incarceration and murder.

I can confirm from personal contacts with industry lobbyists in Sweden with whom I broached this idea that there would indeed be interest in such a deal provided that it would be sufficiently financially attractive. This is how market economies function; virtually everything is for sale as long as the price is right and there is no reason why the Person Liberation Movement should not use this to the advantage of the brutally oppressed, enslaved persons whose liberation we seek. A fundamentally economic problem thus requires a fundamentally economic solution.

However, this calculus is only applicable to the degree that there are vegan products available that are capable of passing stringently performed blind tests and double blind tests as compared to corresponding evil products. The economy of the possible in this regard is hence wholly limited by any contemporary extent of technological developments and this is why, on a strategic level, demand for and consumption of industrially processed vegan products that are superficially indistinguishable from evil products is so crucially important. This integrated strategy for phase-out and buy-out will also help us align with other political players in civil society as these potential political interlocutors of ours would be assured that their consumer habits and cherished favorite meals will not really need to change on a superficial sensorial level, although it is certainly true that food recipes will in many cases have to be slightly modified. The best way to explain this is to invite interlocutors to deliciously prepared vegan “evil-style” dinners to warmly inviting and friendly homes. Serving badly prepared vegan foods is in contrast likely to have a reverse and negative political effect and very high standards of vegan gourmet cooking is thus crucial in this regard.

This general phase-out needs to be framed as part of a broader substitution of unethical products generally, to the degree that indistinguishable ethical substitutions become available in other fields as well. This should not only include non-vegan ingredients/products with indistinguishable ethical substitutions, but significantly also ingredients and products that hold low quality, are detrimental to the health of consumers, have low nutritional levels, are produced without proper ethical social standards or harm the environment, but do have sensorially indistinguishable ethical substitutions. These other industries do not need to be bought-out as they can merely change their ingredients without real problems of any kind to the degree that such ethical substitutions are indeed available on the market once the unethical ones have been outlawed. However, it certainly does make sense strategically and ethically to frame the phase-out as part of a broader ethical, industrial and legal process of supplanting unethical products generally with ethical and superficially indistinguishable products that would pass any ambitious blind and double blind testing. However, it must be emphasized that phase-out of non-vegan products/ingredients should have precedence over other forms of ethical phase-out if there is a conflict of interest between them and this also makes sense from an environmental perspective considering the overwhelming threat of global warming.

What is outlined here is an integrated strategy for significant change and the various tactics of the movement in this regard should hence be synchronized in accordance with such broader strategies that will allow us to befriend new political allies across much of the political spectrum. This is also an agenda with political potential to bring together the various a-movements (rightists, welfarists, liberationists, eco-feminists and so on) since it would be somewhat difficult to remain “a friend” of “non-human” natural persons while opposing the agenda outlined above considering that the sacred meals of the welfarists will be sensually indistinguishable from their present wicked digestion. Opposition to evil and other unethical products will also allow the Person Liberation Movement to align substantially with trade unions, with the environmental movement and the health movement as well as with many far less superficially obvious potential allies such as Modern Orthodox Jews. This will require us to not merely advocate ad nauseam, but also to listen to others.

It is also true that there are crucial a-issues beyond the rural-industrial complex, issues that will require other political strategies. A successful Person Liberation Movement will need to find political formats to bring together such strategies in ways that will crucially allow us to befriend new and diverse allies of the movement. A broader commitment to universal emancipation for everyone with emotions will no doubt require a willingness to listen carefully to many other sentients who at present are not necessarily listened to, but will at the same time permit us to befriend new allies, some influential, some completely powerless. Significantly, this will require us to help undo the omnipresent, bisecting, anti-body, metaphysical rhetoric that is so prevalent inside critical theory in particular and in the broader Secular-Christian political format generally. We can help make others inclusive of our movement by becoming inclusive of them.

6. The Challenge of Dialogue

Any political interest or movement in a pluralist political system usually needs to befriend strategic allies in order to prevail and become influential. It is very easy to blame political adversaries instead of systematically engaging with surrounding civil society generally. Post-WWII European Jewish communities are still very much marked and stigmatized by the experience of genocide and did for many decades assume that they could not engage with civil society because of the common prevalence of bigotry, prejudice and bias against Jews generally of both the Diaspora and Israel.

The Person Liberation Movement stands at a similar juncture; it is easy to stereotype civil society and assume that other political movements and players are irredeemably prejudicial and irredeemably hostile towards the interests of “non-human” persons. Yes, there is much prejudice out there and that is indeed why the Person Liberation Movement is needed as ”human” anti-body oppression against sentient natural persons generally, indeed ultimately tends to be founded on systemic prejudice.

What is thus required is engagement in dialogue with other components and players of civil society. This is not simple and those movement professionals and activists who thus engage will usually require some further training and will need to be carefully screened and selected. It is very easy to make initial contact, receive a slightly prejudicial reply and then write off an entire political movement or demographic segment as irredeemable bigots. Such was the attitude until a number of years ago among European Jewish leaders and so is the attitude still in the Person Liberation Movement. In both cases, the challenge is to break down a dichotomy, as in the case of oppressed Jews vis-à-vis surrounding civil society and this is still unfortunately the attitude in much of the Person Liberation Movement regarding the increasingly omnipresent, yet irrational, absurd and unscientific dichotomy of human/non-human which is shared by Nazi supremacists and Humanist supremacists alike.

Similar to how the long-term religious dialogue between Jews and Christians has profoundly changed both Judaism and Christianity, so does the Person Liberation Movement need to engage in sustained and patient dialogue with surrounding civil society. Major Christian churches could become important interlocutors of sustained dialogue for the Person Liberation Movement as could many “secular” [i.e. culturally Christian] movements. This is critical as the human/non-human dichotomy of secular society is ultimately founded on underlying and only slightly “secularized” religious prejudice. Nearly all modern political ideologies, such as Fascism, Liberalism and Socialism, but also no doubt surprising to some; even Islamism, are intrinsically founded on superficially “secularized” Christian metaphysics.

Many forms of Islamism such as the Shi’i Islamism of Ali Shariati that still predominates in present Iran and the Sunni Islamism of Sayyid Qutb which is the founding ideology of Al Qaida and which dominates the Muslim Brotherhood were both created as deliberate syntheses between Marxism and traditional political Islam. Since even Islamism is largely based on the increasingly omnipresent, yet barely “secularized” Christian metaphysics; so should it not come as a surprise that the Person Liberation Movement itself is founded on the very evil ideology of Christian Humanist supremacism that is at the root of the terrible, systematic and industrialized crimes against non-human persons in the globalized supremacist culture of Secular/Christian civilization. Sustained dialogue that significantly involves the very religious roots of Humanist supremacism is hence very much in need, not only with regard to those who call themselves “religious”, but also significantly with respect to those who naively refer to themselves as “secular”.

These multiple dialogue formats need to be carefully prepared and most of those from the Person Liberation Movement who thus engage with other players of civil society, hence need some formal or informal training with regard to philosophy generally and its Christian genealogy specifically. It is precisely because the human/non-human dichotomous barrier of prejudice is so entrenched that sustained dialogue with civil society is also so badly needed. Socialism is an historical branch of Liberalism which in turn was originally developed by Catholic and later also Protestant philosophers, beginning with the Canonists in 12th century and lasting until the 17th century, when Liberalism instead began to undergo a process of “secularization.”

The ideology of secularism is also a product of Catholicism and became influential when so suggested by Pope Gelasius I in the year of 494. Socialism and Liberalism thus shares an almost indistinguishable and barely “secularized” Christian metaphysics which is Humanist racial supremacism. Virtually all modern ideologies are supremacist and founded on Humanist idealization which hence oppresses those very persons who do not fit the particular humanist idealization thus promulgated, be they entrepreneurs, Jews, “non-human” persons, females, certain stigmatized minorities of sexual practice, diagnostically limited persons, the poor, sentient fetuses/embryos, legal minors, those of advanced age, the sick, Muslims, “Untermenschen”, Infidels/Dhimmis and so on. Those persons who do not fit the humanist idealization (whoever they are) tend to be scapegoated in the process of entrenching humanist idealization; be it Fascist, Islamist, Liberal or Marxist.

This is the crux of the immense strategic problem faced by the Person Liberation Movement, which has hitherto seemed insurmountable from the vantage point of movement intellectuals and animal philosophers. Non-human persons are systematically oppressed and non-enfranchised because they do not fit the various humanist idealizations of the day of nearly all modern political ideologies.

It is precisely because the roots of this prejudice and oppression are to be found in traditional religion and more specifically in classical and medieval Christian theology, that religious dialogue between religious activists/intellectuals from the Person Liberation Movement and various traditional denominations is a venue that is so potentially promising and liberating. Systemic self-criticism plays a very prominent role in many (although not all) forms of contemporary religion and those religious leaders committed to self-criticism as part of the basics of religion, tend to be open towards the dialogue format of sustained intellectual change. Of course, not everyone outside the Person Liberation Movement is open to sustained dialogue and the same is of course true within the Person Liberation Movement. This is why an intellectual within the Person Liberation Movement might be suitable for dialogue with some segments of civil society, but not with other segments of civil society. Those who take part in inter-religious dialogue are usually lay people with some participating community professionals and this format is suitable as well for participants in dialogue from the Person Liberation Movement. It is also advisable that at least one bridging person is present who is affiliated with both sides.

The largely baseless “secular” dichotomy of ideology/religion is not merely an accident of Secular/Christian history, but is one that serves to disguise and legitimize the very oppressive, irrational, anti-body, Hellenist-Christian roots of Humanist supremacism and oppressive Humanist idealization in nearly all modern ideologies. This is so because Christianity as an originally Hellenist phenomenon was deeply influenced by the combined hatred/worship of bodies that characterized Hellenist civilization. Dialogue should thus not be limited to Church and other religious interlocutors, but should play an important role in befriending potential political partners from civil society in general. Establishing and nurturing such dialogue needs to be done with great care and responsibility. Political synergies, which may not be immediately obvious may grow and become important as dialogue proceeds. Of course, some political players find it easy to abandon allies while other interlocutors are politically faithful and trustworthy. This is why it is crucially important to take great care, both in training activists and movement professionals and in selecting our individual interlocutors to the degree of course that this is for us to decide.

Such work must be done locally, while the emerging alliances should be implemented globally. However, this essential work begins at home. Exposing and confronting the evil ideology of Humanist supremacism and Humanist idealization must be initiated within the movement before we can bring this pivotal issue to external interlocutors and potential political partners throughout civil society. This is the crux of the matter which the Person Liberation Movement can no longer afford to ignore, considering the secular hell to which billions of unique persons with their own emotions are yearly confined to and later brutally murdered. This globalized secular hell of murder and torment against billions of persons every year is evil and this is one of the things that the Person Liberation Movement needs to tell our future interlocutors and potential political partners.

7. Humanist Supremacism is NOT Your Friend

Humanist supremacism is generally assumed in emancipatory movements to be the sole framework for emancipation, the only game in town. This is so because Humanist supremacism is the predominant form of politics in Secular/Christian culture. Thus, it is assumed by most emancipatory activists that this is the only framework for emancipation. E.g. many activists in the diverse movement that advocate on the behalf of various categories of persons who have diagnostic functional limitations, do not usually understand that idealizing Humanist supremacism is the problem, not the solution; as they like “non-human” persons fail to fit the idealization and are therefore oppressed and discriminated.

In order to reach out to potential allies across civil society, it is critical that this is profoundly understood by those in the Person Liberation Movement who do the reach-out. In contrast, building alliances on the basis of an ever-extended Humanist supremacism will only perpetuate the very oppression of humanist idealization by still maintaining a particular normative and distinctly male and European fictional form of what is known as so called “humans” as the intrinsic basis of anthropocentric emancipatory discourse. It is precisely due to its historical religious roots that idealizing Humanist supremacism in Secular/Christian culture is mistakenly perceived as something intrinsically positive.

However, once it is understood that the traditional unquestioned eschatological format is part of the problem rather than the solution; then many politically helpful relationships and alliances can be gradually, yet carefully developed across much of the political spectrum. The criticism of anthropocentrism, i.e. idealizing humanist racial supremacism, should thus be part of the basis of such essential political work across categorical boundaries. Opponents of anti-body oppression – of all people – should understand that it is the anti-body oppression of persons that matters, not the ascribed categorical affiliations of those thus oppressed. This is how emancipatory discourses become complicit in the very anti-body oppression which emancipatory intellectuals after all seek to end. What is hence needed is a theoretically more profound understanding of and a fully inclusive critique of idealizing Anthropocentrism, no matter what historical life categories the victims happen to be ascribed to by hegemonic, subordinating, classificatory discourses.

8. Emancipation beyond Master-Slave Morality

One of the greatest pitfalls of emancipatory movements is the dichotomizing ideology of Master-Slave Morality whereby in its slave mode, might equal secular sin while weakness equals secular righteousness. This epistemological notion that “weak is right” is just as baseless as the reverse notion that “might is right”. These are highly problematic as general metaphysical presumptions since neither of these notions is generally true. Are criminals right because they are usually weaker than the police? Are the police right because it is strong?

Is it also not preferable to profoundly seek to understand those who indeed engage in anti-body oppression (physionomism) and their collective psychological processes as opposed to “categorically” demean and stigmatize such persons? Could it even be that innocence is not really the issue? Is it not true that most legally adult citizens are both victims of – as well as complicit in multiple discursive structures of anti-body oppression? Indeed, it is the master mode (“might is right”) of the predominant Master-Slave Morality in Secular/Christian supremacist globalized “civilization” that serves to justify evil mass crimes against persons denied personhood. Master-Slave Morality also serves to entrench the distinctly mythological human/non-human dichotomy and is also in this sense a formidable political obstacle to universal emancipation.

Once such complex complicity is openly and publically acknowledged; then it becomes much easier to also acknowledge the destructive role of “ordinary” consumers in perpetrating the most extensive crime in history, which beginning two centuries years ago, is increasingly perpetrated on an ever-larger scale against enslaved “non-human” persons. Is it not true as Derrida points out that an all-out war has been waged against “non-human” persons already now for two centuries? It is very easy for advocates of emancipation of “non-human” persons to fall into the discursive trap of Master-Slave Morality and merely engender an easily repressible bad conscience whereby persons reduced to property status are also discursively reduced to a bare victimhood that many citizens do not really want to see, read or hear of and prefer to ignore as the mythical human/non-human dichotomy is discursively further entrenched and the structure of anti-body oppression is thus once more re-inscribed. Indeed, this was the very public psychology among most of Nazi Germany’s citizenry that critically facilitated the Shoah and other Nazi mass crimes.

European opponents of Anti-Jewish defamation have long assumed that public memory with respect to the Shoah is the best antidote against Anti-Jewish prejudice. Rather, it is now apparent across Europe that the bad conscience has come back with a vengeance by publically reducing Israel and its neighboring detractors to the traditional European stereotypical prejudice of Master-Slave morality. While what are known as “Anti-Semites” (to use a long since outdated term) metaphysically stigmatize the Jews as ostensibly “inverted victims”, “Philo-Semites” do laud the Jews as their favorite eternal victims. Inadvertently encouraging bad conscience is thus not a particularly good strategy since it reinforces and perpetuates victimhood. Of course, modern Zionism was founded in Nietzsche’s time as a revolt against Master-Slave Morality and indeed very much remains so.

Shoah (Holocaust) remembrance has rather been hijacked by a Secular/Christian Bio-conservative agenda bent on reinforcing oppressively idealizing humanist supremacism, which after all was at the very heart of the Nazi regime, its ideology and its crimes. Humanist supremacists of most major contemporary ideologies/religions have for decades tried to style themselves as the one and only, very metaphysical “opposite” of Nazism at the expense of the memory of the victims and their families, Jewish, Romani, LGBTQ, “non-human” and so on. Indeed, there were many enslaved “non-human” victims of the Shoah, who alongside many Jewish, Rom, LGBTQ and other “untermenschen” were subjected to systematic scientific torture as legal regulations in Nazi Germany required that scientific torture against “sub-humans” had to be preceded by similar and parallel scientific torture against “non-human” incarcerated persons of the Nazi concentration camps. Why is it that the memory of “non-human” victims of this evil industrialized calamity has been conveniently “forgotten” and excluded from public memorial activity, including by those prominently bent on re-inscribing the historical memory of the Shoah into a superficially “secularized” Christian metaphysics?

Text is hence more complex and not necessarily reducible to mere conscious intentions of its articulators. The Person Liberation Movement needs to move beyond unthinking, habitual engendering of bad conscience and the bisecting murderous dichotomy of Master-Slave Morality as need intellectuals engaged in genocide remembrance and active opposition to prejudice generally. Appropriately describing and representing such crimes, whether against “non-humans” or “sub-humans” is indeed a difficult literary task and is one that responsible visual artists generally need to engage with. The extreme horrors of such historical events are not easily reducible to orthographic systems of communication and may in most cases be far better represented by ethically committed professional artists. The Person Liberation Movement thus needs to find creative ways to pro-actively encourage professional artists; Jewish, LGBTQ, Romani, Elephant, Vegan, Chimpanzee and otherwise, to deal with the industrialized radical evil of both past and present through works of art that encourage members of the audience to think for themselves and ask critical questions about the very foundations of industrialized radical evil.

Public representation of free “non-human” persons in “non-human” societies is also stereotypically reduced to Master-Slave Morality as the ostensibly “amoral” predators are dichotomously posed against the no doubt “innocent” herbivores. But is innocence really the issue here, is not that merely another means to entrench the hegemony of idealizing Humanist supremacism and Master-Slave Morality? The truth that is conveniently ignored is that predators (as opposed to parasites) tend to be highly ethical and compassionate in consistently ending the suffering of the ill in “non-human” societies in the absence of hospitals in forests and oceans. Absence of predators in “non-human” societies would in contrast be a calamity of terrible dimensions and would lead to dreadful suffering and slow painful death in enormous numbers.

Modern “human” dysgenic shotgun hunters in contrast, tend to target for murder the healthiest and most dynamic person in a free herd family, while compassionate predators of “non-human” societies rather tend to end the needless suffering of the terminally ill. The systemic evils of idealizing Humanist supremacism are thus projected onto free predators and moral and legal guilt for the most extensive crime in history is thus inverted from Humanist supremacists and libelously translated and discursively re-inscribed onto the bodies of mostly ethical, compassionate predators whose ostensible “example” is widely appropriated to justify the evil of the global industry of terror and death that has never been more extensive than at present. Indeed, this is precisely how Nazi Germany discursively appropriated non-consenting free predators to justify Nazi mass-scale crimes against persons denied personhood.

The historical event of the Shoah is outside of ethics and reducing the victims to the prejudicial morality of Secular/Christian metaphysics is to demean the memory of the victims; Jewish, Romani, “non-human”, LGBTQ and others. The ongoing calamity of globalized, industrialized mass evil is in exactly the same way outside of ethics and dependent on the very same metaphysical binary system of prejudice that murderously bisects sentient natural persons generally between those who are legally or “philosophically” granted personhood on the one hand and on the other hand those very persons with their own emotions who are rather denied “philosophical” or “legal” personhood and who are thus considered mere living “individuals” like plants and bacteria.

Evil is evil is evil.

9. The Nazicentric Condition

Post-Nazi morality has evolved in Secular/Christian globalized “civilization” (i.e. imperialism) in ways that has permitted idealizing Humanist supremacism to be anachronistically “reincarnated” as the ostensibly intrinsic “opposite” of and indeed purportedly “only alternative” to Nazism. The hell of traditional imagination has conclusively been supplanted by the real Nazi hell of history and the devil of Christian imagination has of course been replaced by Adolf Hitler. Yet, the foundational Secular/Christian metaphysics which underlies idealizing Humanist supremacism and significantly facilitated the Shoah has remained virtually unchanged.

Public Shoah memorial activity has become a locus of non-understanding, rather than of genealogical understanding of this very historical calamity. The state of non-understanding makes it impossible to draw more ethically relevant lessons from the memory of Shoah beyond endorsing the ever-reincarnated idealizing Humanist supremacism which was (and remains) after all at the very center of Nazi thought. The public memorialization of the historical event of the Shoah has in effect been reduced to the status of a Secular/Christian mystery, not very different from its prior Christian mystery cult.

This disguises the inconvenient fact that Nazism was in cultural terms essentially a form of only slightly secularized medieval Christianity. What after all differentiated Adolf Hitler from Martin Luther was not the immensely hostile attitude towards the Jews which they shared, but the access to logistics, technology and the powerful tool of “secularity” as ostensibly detached from all religious superstition. Hatred of Jews had become ostensibly rational once it had been detached from “religion” and reincarnated into “ideology.” In the past century, the hatred against Jews has become once more reincarnated and rationalized by a similar detachment, this time from Nazism itself under the guise of denying Jews nationality, self-determination and self-defense; a denial which hides the genealogical fact that the modern idea of nation and nationality itself was derived from culturally Christian, distinctly supercessionist readings of the Hebrew Bible whereby the Jewish notion of universal Jewish community was appropriated by others.

This is why Anti-Jewish prejudice became so internalized to many forms of modern “nationalism”, because these “secular” phenomena claimed to “replace the Jews” with another chosen nation. In some post-Shoah incarnations of idealizing humanist supremacism, Jewish particularity, Jewish past and Jewish future are of course negated in the name of the overarching eschatology of “the chosen species”, the homo sapiens, which has been officially zoologically reclassified as the subspecies homo sapiens sapiens, meaning that humans are considered the chosen race by human supremacists. The extreme and openly racist nationalism of hegemonic human supremacism is known as “secular humanism” despite simply being a barely rehashed form of Christian humanism.

Once Nazism had become the measure of all evils, it followed that the ultimate evil belongs to the past only, a view which prevents seeing the crucial fact that the most extensive crime in history does not only belong to the past but is perpetrated in the very present and in increasingly gargantuan dimensions. The Shoah thus needs to be understood in the light of its genealogical, logistical, technological, scientific, metaphysical and economic context as a certain historical outgrowth of the already existing very mass industrialized enslavement, incarceration, torment and mass murder of persons denied personhood, which after all was what the Shoah was all about.

Indeed, reaching more appropriate ethical conclusions with respect to the historical event of the Shoah requires placing the Shoah in its historical context of industrialized radical evil. Simplistic comparisons between the Shoah and other events are often made in ways that are offensive and disrespectful and any proportionate analogy in this regard should hence be based on specific corresponding historical aspects. To make simplistic comparisons and weak analogies between the Shoah and other events is not only insensitive to the survivors of the Shoah and their families, but it is similarly disproportionate and inappropriate to simplistically compare the ongoing calamity against “non-human” persons denied personhood – with other genocides in the sense of constituting an ethically inappropriate diminishing of the gargantuan scope of the continuing genocide against “non-human” persons denied personhood. How could after all, the murder of millions be proportionally compared with the murder of billions?

The unwarranted turning of the memory of the Shoah into a metaphysical mystery does not only unhelpfully obscure the memory of the Shoah itself; it deprives the present continuing genocide of its full historical context by perpetuating the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy that structurally underlies both the Shoah and the continuing genocide against billions of persons denied personhood. From the other end of prejudice, the anthropocentric discursive bisection among genocides against “sub-human” persons and genocides against “non-humans” persons – makes genocides generally incomprehensible in contemporary political discourse because the paradigmatic accounts on both shores of this binary are systematically deprived of their shared genealogical (historical), logistical, technological, scientific, metaphysical and economic context. It certainly does not require a mystery to deny persons personhood.

What happened then with the Christian lead figure of Jewsus which was once so omnipresent in European culture? Donna Haraway, Jacques Derrida and others have made the crucial point in so many ways: The metaphysics of sacrificial crucifixion has become superficially “secularized” into a billion cages of incarceration, torment and murder without resurrection. Billions of Jesuis (in the sense of persons) have been confined to the billion Cage and are of course continually sacrificed on behalf of the emerging parasitoids known as so called “humanity.” The hell of the present is thus permitted to continue precisely because it is unhistorically disjoined from the hell of the past (of Nazism) which of course was disjoined from the hell of the future (of Christianity).

10. Diplomats for Universal Personhood

The challenge of dialogue with surrounding civil society is not merely one of advocacy and lobbying, but also crucially diplomacy. What is required is careful nurturing of emerging and growing shared interests/values by means of highly educated psychological sensitivity towards individual dialogue interlocutors. Many members of the Person Liberation Movement who are affiliated with various communities (ethnic, business, functional, professional, religious, sexual and so on) of civil society can no doubt play a critical part by helping to make connections and serve as bridging persons in various dialogue formats. Such diverse members are not merely dormant political assets of the Person Liberation Movement but can in effect serve as activist diplomats who could help bring together the Person Liberation Movement with civil society generally in ways that will serve to critically undo idealizing Humanist supremacism.

It is also true that strategic relationships built locally need to be implemented globally and this will of course require substantial diplomatic skills. Diplomacy is also needed in the sense as identifying existing, emerging and potential political synergies between the Person Liberation Movement on the one hand and others in civil society on the other. This is dynamic rather that static and is dependent on novel and innovative articulation of ethical non-anthropocentric political axioms and terminology in lieu of idealizing Humanist supremacism, Master-Slave Morality and other unhelpful purportedly “secular” discursive phenomena that constitute strategic obstacles to the Person Liberation Movement.

Being a fulltime professional diplomat goes beyond mere lobbying since identifying and nurturing shared interests between equal partners is indeed the very basis of diplomacy. Offering things in return to partners would not be limited to movement activities but one way we could potentially assist emerging partners in the future would be by eventually bringing together different future partners of ours on the basis of shared criticism of idealizing Humanist supremacism to help build a broader ethical political community beyond the Human supremacist tyranny of the present. Bringing together partners of ours on this ethical basis is not merely a strategic service that we might become positioned to offer future partners, but should be regarded as an intrinsic goal in and of itself.

The more proactive the Person Liberation Movement becomes in befriending potential strategic allies, the more political goods will the Person Liberation Movement become capable of offering in return to its various strategic partners. It is common that some “political surplus” appears as a result of coalition building, “surplus” which in turn might be potentially provided to yet other potential strategic partners. Triangular diplomatic relationships are another means of nurturing political influence and eventually deploy effective political power. Triangular relationships are strategically powerful because they are not limited to merely two sides and thus tend to become more dynamic in building both shared interests and shared values and thus tend to generate more “political surplus.”

Bringing together the parties for phase-out and buy-out of evil products and evil services is a form of critically important diplomacy and both similar and different solutions need to be found with regard to other person emancipation issues. Generous government buy-outs of circuses and zoos followed by complete legal proscription would not be especially expensive for governments and the role of the Person Liberation in this regard could hence be to bring together the parties to find a mutually satisfactory level of compensation corresponding to twice the market value through all-out buy-out.

It is also important that the Person Liberation Movement makes clear that it is not anti-business, but that we are rather opposed to unethical business practices such as enslavement, incarceration, torment, forced labor, murder, enforced impregnation, dysgenic breeding of persons, dysgenic genetic engineering of persons, as well as theft of body parts, lactation, ova, sperm and honey. Effective diplomatic relationships with the world of business are thus crucially important in identifying common economic ground. Some of our corporate adversaries can become allies in the phase-out once offered appropriate economic incentives. Ethical businesses such as producers of sensually indistinguishable vegan meat might also be interested in proactively joining our political efforts considering how much they stand to benefit economically from phase-out of both evil products/services and unethical products/services generally.

Diplomacy is about bridging political gaps and transcending dichotomies and involves patient and respectful building of strategic relationships by deploying creative discursive strategies geared towards nurturing both common interests and common values. Professional diplomacy is not merely an international necessity but is something quite indispensable for domestic ethical politics in societies that tend to become increasingly diverse. This is why the Person Liberation Movement needs to encourage its local members to become activist diplomats by taking action and help build strategic connections between Person Liberation Movement professionals and other players in civil society.

11. Supplanting the Terminology of Supremacism

The question of terminology is one that has been important for every successful emancipatory movement. As a result of this, much prejudicial and oppressive terminology has fallen out of use and some formerly prejudicial and oppressive terminology has gained entirely different emotional connotations. Rather than stigmatizing those prejudicially designated, the oppressive terminology itself has either been effectively stigmatized or invested with a substantially different and liberating sense.

The Person Liberation Movement thus needs to engage in strategic, inclusive efforts towards transforming its political terminology and by extension that of the so called “general” public and in many cases come up with innovative non-prejudicial terminology that would supplant terms that tend to serve to reinforce anti-body oppression on the level of discourse. The Person Liberation Movement and its corporate adversaries largely share the same specialized technical terminology and this is obviously extremely problematic. Since this predicament is a larger, more general issue involving many words and expressions in many idioms, this matter needs to be carefully studied and dealt with as a broader strategic issue that is no less crucial to the Person Liberation Movement than it was to historically successful emancipatory movements. General ethical parameters are needed, both with regard to which terminology needs to be either stigmatized-supplanted or re-appropriated and how novel liberating terminology should indeed sound and look like.

Which terms thus need to be changed?

  1. Terms and usage that bisect broader and general phenomena through the unscientific human/non-human binary. This includes of course virtually all usage of the words “animal” and “animals” in the sense as referring only to “non-human” persons.
  2. Terms that are anthropocentric: This requires coining or finding non-anthropocentric terminology such as the neutral term “idiom” or “communication system” instead of the anthropocentric term “language” (literally “tongue”) which is used to designate only high-status “human” standard forms of communication to the exclusion of both low-status forms of “human” communication as well as largely unrecognized communication on the part of “non-human” persons.

III. Terms that serve to normalize oppression. The Person Liberation movement needs to be especially ever-vigilant against virtually all specific terminology regarding oppression of “non-human” persons that is shared by the Person Liberation Movement with its corporate political adversaries.

  1. Terms that repeat and re-inscribe oppression, such as discursively reducing victims of anti-body oppression to a “bare victimhood” where all aspects of such persons are effectively reduced to her victimhood.
  2. Anti-body metaphysics, anti-body terminology and anti-body representation generally needs to be challenged universally, even in contexts that may not necessarily be conventionally perceived as related to the general issue of the political status of “non-human” persons.

Coming up with new helpful and ethical terminology is an important intellectual strategic task which also needs to take into consideration various pivotal strategic political aspects, including crucially with regard to anti-body oppression generally. One quite effective way of doing this properly could be to arrange international contests so as to encourage activists and intellectuals to propose new terms in place of oppressive ones. Also, it should be kept in mind that there is nothing wrong with synonyms and the coining of more than one term for a particular a-issue.

There are a number of types of emancipatory terminology:

  1. Acronyms are helpful in the sense that these tend to invoke linguistic reverence and by extension political legitimacy. The relative shortness of most acronyms makes them quite easy to use and hence often popular by extension. The use of community acronyms has been quite helpful to the political success in recent years of the LGBTQ movement.
  2. Greek and Latin neologisms can be used in parallel throughout many different idioms and tend to quickly spread in specialized usage across cultural, national and idiomatic barriers. Greek and Latin neologisms usually provide a certain amount of political status, reverence and even scientific legitimacy in “human” society generally.
  3. Re-appropriations of oppressive terminology: These may be quite powerful (such as in the cases of “Queer” and “Gay”) if emotionally modified in ethically appropriate ways, geared towards effecting a change of paradigm. This means very substantially changing the sense of usage of certain prejudicial terminology so that it is instead used in a liberating and transformative sense. This is a particularly complex task since it requires not changing a term or expression but rather changing the implicit value system of particular terminology
  4. Easy and user-friendly words and phrases: This means e.g. adopting the term “scientific torture” rather than “animal experimentation”.
  5. Emotionally evocative terms such as “evil” which can be understood intuitively without too much preceding conscious thinking, but are yet highly appropriate in understanding a generalized emotional context of victims of particular forms of anti-body oppression are thus indispensable in understanding the evils of idealizing Humanist supremacism.
  6. Prefixes, new and old, including abbreviations such as “vego” that are used as prefixes, may be adapted and coined to be used in many different combinations similar to how the word “wiki” (from the Hawaiian “wikiwiki” meaning quick) is extremely widely used in many different combinations to designate various collaborative web sites.
  7. Terms that need to be extended. “Non-human” societies should thus be referred to as societies and not as ostensibly non-cultural “nature.” However, such extensions should not be done in the sense as extending and broadening prejudicial and oppressive discursive premises such as the idealizing Humanist supremacism of Secular/Christian metaphysics.

New terms should also be selected and adopted on the basis of the practical likelihood that these neologisms are indeed likely to catch on. It is generally an advantage to coin universalizing discourse that may be used in many different idioms since this provides an international context and thus by extension political legitimacy. Phonetically evocative/intuitive terms may in principle be adopted from any idiom as ethical borrowing of words should not necessarily be limited to loans from standard European idioms. However, using terms of certain European origins is often more helpful in practice as words derived from particular European standard idioms (English, French, Greek and Latin) are more internationally intelligible with etymologies that seem apparent to more people in many different cultures and “civilizations” throughout the word. E.g. while Indonesia and Malaysia are Muslim-dominated countries with essentially the same official idiom (Malay/Indonesian) written with Latin characters, Malay/Indonesian borrows words from English, French, Greek and Latin no less than do contemporary European idioms.

Ethical stigmatization and re-appropriation of prejudicial terminology as well as various innovative modes of strategic idiomatic adaption with regard to anti-body oppression generally is crucial because it lays part of the indispensible discursive foundations for universal emancipation and need hence be done with great prudence and circumspection.

12. Beyond Chemical Materialism

Those who engage in critical theory and philosophy tend to overwhelmingly stick to the culture/nature binary paradigm of intrinsically idealizing Humanist supremacism. Eco-feminists and Post-Humanists, who are not yet great in numbers in academia, are virtually the only scientists who have ventured to substantially move beyond this intrinsic barrier of prejudice and mass evil with regard to the so called “natural” sciences. Indeed, ancient administrative divisions in academia that are fiercely policed are very much part of the problem.

The deeper philosophical question that needs to be posed is thus; what is life in the sense of life-forms generally? What is it really? What scientists have yet not sought to comprehensively understand is something which is best described as the physics of life. Western Christian “civilization” in general and the Catholic church in particular has always been particularly averse towards so called “magic” and this aversion has been secularized so to speak into a kind of materialist chemical hegemony in academia and the Humanist racial supremacist society/economy at large.

It has been well known to historians of science since Thomas Kuhn’s 1962 publication of “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that academic paradigms tend to ignore virtually everything that does not fit the paradigm’s own matrix and so it is with chemical hegemony. How can it be that chemical medical treatment is considered “scientific” while suggestive (so called “placebo effect”) treatments are considered “unscientific”, even though the latter are widely recognized as highly effective, albeit of course to various degrees? Why so dogmatically refrain from aiding in so many cases when this aid in fact happens to be so widely available? The argument that I seek to make is not that the so called “placebo effect” is somehow “meta-physical” or ”super-natural,” but rather that suggestive medicine as practiced in both traditional and modern cultures is part of the yet to be scientifically well-understood dynamics of the physics of life. Similar to how the Person Liberation Movement has relied on the wrong academic discipline, i.e. philosophy rather than critical theory (which is after all the very academic field that is devoted to the study of oppression), so has life itself been systematically misunderstood by recourse to the wrong hegemonic discipline; to chemistry rather than to physics, considering that biology is essentially a sub-discipline under the umbrella of materialist chemical hegemony. It is therefore crucial to look at that which is deliberately ignored by the current paradigm of chemical hegemony.

Suggestive medicine, also known as “the placebo effect” is the single best scientifically documented expression of this mostly unexplored physics of life, a denial of which that is critically perpetuated by powerful chemical industries that rely on systematic scientific torture against “non-human” persons, whom they for some reason believe that they are entitled to breed in ways dysgenic, torture, cruelly incarcerate and murder in the millions as “secular” sacrificial offerings to that which Secular/Christian “civilization” refers to as “humanity.” The academic paradigm that allows this evil to continue is of course chemical hegemony for which “non-human” persons are merely chemical models whose individual personalities are without consequence. The rigorous scientific question that needs to be posed against this paradigmatic evil is not how relatively effective suggestive medicine is, as this certainly varies, but how suggestive medicine can be made far more effective than it is at present through rigorous and systematic scientific inquiry. Of course, superficially seen; the chemical-medical industrial complex would indeed seem to have much to lose and little to gain from the posing of such vital, rigorous, critical, scientific questions. However, such a conclusion is founded on a simplistic non-understanding of the tremendous economic potential of a scientifically advanced suggestive medicine.

Materialist chemical hegemony is also the very academic meta-paradigm which facilitates global environmental destruction on an unprecedented scale. Mass destruction of environments entails of course also genocidal destruction of members of “non-human” societies for whom the so called “environment” is home. Even “the environment” is construed as external to the supremacist life category as if the cavities of stomachs of so called “humans” and the very external skins of such persons are not part of the very common space which is so unscientifically divided between supremacists on the one hand and all thus externalized life categories on the other, whom supremacists, irrespective of individual sentience of those thus subjected, claim to “own” as if being territorial is not common among many taxa; as ownership and sovereignty are merely two more modes of so many forms of being territorial, including in academia. This is not to suggest as did Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that ownership and what is now known as sovereignty are basically “insanity,” but rather that it constitutes variation of and is indeed part of the very web of life generally. Indeed, the society/environment dichotomy is merely yet another variation on the very unscientific human/non-human dichotomy.

Suggestive medicine is not the only expression of this almost entirely uncharted physics of life. There are indeed many other ignored phenomena that scientists refrain from seeking to understand through perspectives from within physics. Without making a list of such phenomena that would suggest á priori ontological endorsement, I suggest that basic research is initiated to understand through physics, phenomena that fall outside of the paradigm of chemical hegemony and are therefore systematically ignored. While some scientists have with some success sought to study some of these ignored phenomena as a sub-discipline of psychology (the scientific mystery cult known as para-psychology), this is yet again the wrong discipline, once more predicated on the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy which science inherited from that particular historical form of Hellenistic religion and mystery cult known as Christianity.

The epistemology of the mystery cult of deliberate non-understanding is thus not only imposed on the sequence of historical events that are more appropriately referred to as the Shoah, but is imposed on life itself. While recognizing that religious imperialism exists in diverse forms and shapes and do not exclusively emanate from Secular/Christian society; it is extremely problematic to say the least, that this secular mystery cult of the epistemology of deliberate non-understanding is so arbitrarily and ignorantly imposed upon Jewish and other fourth-world societies such as with regard to shamanism and specifically in ways that are so detrimental and even disastrous for Earthlings generally.

Indeed, mystery cults and deliberate non-understanding should have no place in an academia that needs to question its own ancient administrative and epistemological divisions. Significantly, Jacques Derrida exposed that the discourses of Secular/Christian space generally are full of such largely unconscious cavities of non-understanding. It is not that scholars stand up to say; “Let’s not understand, let’s have another mystery cult!”, but rather that this is an intellectual pattern that is so pervasive and typical of Secular/Christian “civilization” generally and is not wholly intentional, but is largely a cultural byproduct of the very metaphysical superstition that is so prevalent in Secular/Christian space and is so prominently and largely unconsciously reinforced by so many licensed representatives of academia. Scholarly promotion of Hellenist/Christian/Secular metaphysics is not only a case of systematic de-education, but is at its very basis a form of culturally authorized superstition that is intrinsic to the ideologies of industrialized anti-body (physionomistic) prejudice and so many other systematic ills of the very subjected space of this globalized Secular/Christian “civilization”, i.e. imperialism.

What is at question is a mislineation of superstition. Simply because something is not understood, whether intentionally or as a default cultural effect, does not mean that it really constitutes superstition. What is required is a systematic relineation of “superstition” as something that does not automatically coincide with the conventional ideology/religion dichotomy. There are indeed elements of what is known as “ideology”, notably most of Hellenist/Christian/Secular metaphysics that are indeed quite superstitious to say the least and there are yet other elements that are considered intrinsic to “religion” for which understanding has merely been systematically denied and in part so, due to outdated administrative divisions in academia and outdated, inapplicable research methodologies. The problem of superstition is thus a very real problem whose delineation has been severely misconstrued and thus – as should indeed be expected, fallen victim to itself. What is thus required no less; is a scientifically rigorous introduction of deconstruction into the corridors of power of so called “natural” science, even beyond biology.

Esoteric deconstructive writing is not deliberate non-understanding, but requires sincerely interested and carefully educated readers to be seriously attentive to not only the range of discursive context but to the very Art of writing (which was widely reintroduced by Friedrich Nietzsche, quite openly disclosed and explained by Leo Strauss and subsequently globally popularized by Jacques Derrida) which for millennia has permitted philosophers of Christian, Jewish and Muslim culture to engage in rigorous scientific blasphemy without risking persecution of that kind or another.

Of course, there are rigorous scientific research data and especially such data that cross sacred anti-body Humanist group barriers (especially with regard to age, sex, sexuality and taxa) that even in contemporary liberal democracies could easily cost a scholar her academic career. It is no coincidence that deconstruction happens to be quite popular in Chinese academia as the Art of writing permits Chinese scholars and learned dissidents who are part of a rather substantial idiomatic scholarly community, the full liberty of writing under dictatorship, even on the Internet, as well as to be understood in detail by many other learned persons inside and outside of China without risking persecution of that kind or another, whether formal or informal. Of course, that does not mean that esoteric writing is always required by default in all contemporary deconstructive writings and that it should never be non-practiced in some deconstructive writings, including perhaps often with respect to many aspects of what is known as “natural” science.

13. Personhood, Citizenship and Equality

While the Person Liberation Movement suffers no shortage of tactics and good intentions; there tends to be much less truly effective strategy and virtually no vision of the future beyond ending certain specifically defined systemic evils. Of course, tactics do not tend to be particularly effective anywhere unless these are intrinsic parts of effective overall strategies geared towards strategic victory (in the sense of shift of paradigm) as opposed to the strategic trap of mere tactical victory.

Indeed, the issue of the future is one that has rarely been considered in the Person Liberation Movement. At least two fundamental questions thus need to be posed. (1) How should victorious emancipation be defined? (2) What happens the day after victorious emancipation is achieved and what then? These are crucial questions, considering that if the Person Liberation Movement is truly devoted to reaching a certain political destination, it needs to read the map with great attention to the surrounding political landscape and choose the right path in each respective political field. Obviously, this would require defining the destination in positive terms; as such a favorably defined destination is a locus that is indeed almost entirely absent in the Person Liberation Movement among both activists and intellectuals.

It is well known that informal anti-body oppression does not fully end with formal legal emancipation. However, refraining from endorsing full emancipation means in a sense, to actually indirectly oppose full emancipation even if this is not the conscious intention. There are discursive phenomena in Secular/Christian culture and in other cultures as well, that are unhelpful to the cause of universal emancipation and there are discursive phenomena that are indeed rather helpful to the cause of universal emancipation or may at least become helpful through some deconstructive reinvention.

It is therefore imperative that the Person Liberation Movement creatively utilizes discursive phenomena that are helpful and leave those behind that are not. Three goals of victorious emancipation should guide the Person Liberation Movement: These are personhood, citizenship and equality. To win the hearts and minds of present citizens and their elected representatives; it is crucial to articulate ethical, universalizing, cross-taxa, political and axiomatic destinations that do not perpetuate the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy and are indeed thus inclusive of so called “humans,” many of whom are indeed denied emancipation. The three key demands should thus also very much apply to those “humans” whose emancipation is also negated. This is the destination of victorious emancipation.

What does indeed happen after emancipation day (or e-day) applies mostly to equality since personhood and citizenship pertain to legal status and are in principle fully achieved through formal legal emancipation and its subsequent judicial implementation. The great question in animal philosophy has been how to articulate equality between “non-human” persons and “human” persons without indirectly causing absurd calamities. The answer is simple; you do not have to be similar to be equal. Imagine four candidates for a very senior corporate position; applicants who have entirely different educational backgrounds. The first one is an economist, the second one is an engineer, the third one is a psychologist and the fourth one has made a successful career for herself without having formal higher education. All four may despite the different backgrounds be equally suitable for a particular professional position.

This informs us that equality is not absolute but contextual and situational and is not dependent on personal categories such as taxa. The same logic applies to four very different persons who need to be fed, to four very different persons who want to roam freely as well as to four very different persons who do not under any circumstance want to be subjected to scientific torture. Who is one’s equal therefore depends on the actual context and the relevant issue at hand and requires respecting individual capacity, individual potential as well as intrinsic individual limitations. A very common fallacy on the part of supremacist advocates is indeed to cite an alleged or actual inequality that is irrelevant to the case at hand and that way – whether intentionally or unintentionally – justify systemic evil.

What does equality mean beyond e-day? Universal emancipation is a two-way street in the sense that some helpful things such as personhood, citizenship and equality will need to be extended to all persons while other things will need to be changed to accommodate “non-human” citizens and their fundamental interest in civic equality. Governments should guarantee non-oppressive, free education and health care services to citizens on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy. Governments should ensure individual security and they should provide it to citizens on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy. Courts of justice should ensure that justice is served and all citizens should therefore be beneficiaries of justice on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy.

The elaboration of equality never ends and that it is the reason why the Person Liberation movement will be needed even after e-day. Indeed, the issue of individual welfare of citizens generally on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy will become very relevant once formal legal emancipation has been achieved. However, the question of individual welfare of citizens beyond formal legal emancipation will need to be completely rethought in ways that are not bureaucratic, patronizing, anti-body, idealizing Humanist racial supremacist or otherwise oppressive of intended beneficiaries.

The Person Liberation Movement is by far the most diverse emancipatory movement ever to have existed with respect to those persons whom the Person Liberation Movement seeks to emancipate. The Person Liberation Movement is discursively auto-excluding and unfortunately self-defeating, by failing to present universalizing demands that are inclusive of the very elected and voting primates whom the movement seeks to appeal to in the first place, as if we are not all animals and as if emotions, subjectivity and personality is not about being animal. The Person Liberation Movement needs to promote pride in being animal among its members, intellectuals and activists as non-discrimination and the tearing down of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy begins at home inside the movement. Everyone who experiences emotions is both animal and person and achieving universal emancipation requires recognizing that being person and being animal is not a binary, but rather in fact the very same thing.

14. Animals for Ethical Treatment of People

The progenitor of the modern Person Liberation Movement emerged in the 19th century as a predominantly female international network of charitable societies which largely came to coincide with the feminist and suffragette women’s movement. The Person Liberation Movement remains predominantly female in membership and still takes a charity approach in the sense that somewhat privileged persons (in the sense of now being legally recognized as persons) take it on themselves to help unprivileged “non-human” People and do so by means of organized charitable work. The so called activist grassroots of the movement are thus constituted by caring “helpers” who entirely altruistically help those who need help.

This narcissistic (and even gynocentric) structure of discourse in the field of Animal politics is yet another political incarnation of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy and is neither helpful, nor necessary as mere charity alone, however well-intentioned, rarely resolves any political issues. All successful emancipatory movements have relied on identity politics which, however epistemologically problematic in so many ways, has been a very crucial element in their respective political success. What is therefore required is a clean break with Humanist identity politics, to be supplanted by Animal identity. The Person Liberation Movement is composed of paying members, activists, intellectuals, philosophers and employed professional staff, all of whom are Animals. Being Animal should no longer be considered as a mark of shame or derogation but needs to be strategically re-appropriated as something to be lived with great pride. The Person Liberation Movement hence needs its own Animal identity politics as “non-human” persons are indeed People with their own distinct cultures, societies and distinct secretive idioms. Animal identity should not be construed as an attempt to supplant all other ostensibly collective identities, but rather to include and celebrate those affinities that are not supremacist or anti-body.

Rather than stereotypically thinking by default in terms of “good us helping poor them”; Animal identity, which would not be one and would certainly not be homogenous; should be seen as a sort of Animals for Ethical Treatment of Animals, by breaking up discursive reiteration of the oppressive dichotomous binary between the supremacist deniers of personhood on the one hand and persons denied personhood on the other. Those metaphysically declared “superior” should not presume that this makes them immune from the consequences of anti-body prejudice which tends indeed to be quite contagious across otherwise sacralized categorical boundaries of the politics of physiology.

Yet, the Person Liberation Movement has much to learn from two centuries of identity politics and the many strategic and tactical mistakes committed through various frameworks of at least nominally emancipatory identity politics. Animal identity would constitute what Giorgio Agamben prophetically refers to as the coming community, a community that would crucially offer a viable, emotional, personal, political and ethical successor to idealizing Humanist racial supremacist identity and the supremacist identity politics of the chosen species.

Animal identity would be about changing paradigm, such as both wearing and giving away animal identity affirming T-shirts as gifts to friends and family on special occasions, giving children generally (on both sides of the human/non-human dichotomy) names such Zebra and Elephant and generally express public pride in Animal identity and arrange various reoccurring public Animal Pride events in major cities around the world where the Person Liberation Movement would celebrate Animal identity. Attractive Animal-style makeup could be used for such occasions by activists of all genders. Of course, many members of the Person Liberation Movement should rightly feel proud of themselves in the sense of each constituting a Unique Animal, but one should also be proud of other Animals as well, including brilliant (and not so brilliant), beautiful (and not so beautiful), helpful (and not so helpful), independent (and not so independent) “non-human” People. Indeed, public pride in other animals on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy could be a source of tremendous potential political strength for the Person Liberation Movement.

Animal-identified voters would make a substantial difference as politicians can ignore demands but can hardly ignore identities. The Person Liberation Movement is in many ways nascent and emerging Animal identity would help serve to end the human/non-human dichotomy within the movement. The tremendous diversity of sentient life means that there are so many ways to express Animal Pride in both oneself and in others on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy. A crucial part of Animal identity is of course to pose political demands that are inclusive of both sides of the unfounded dichotomy. Many present citizens assume that there is an unbridgeable abyss between “human” and “non-human” persons while in fact this is for the most part a religious/ideological and technological/economic construction. Technology, economy and critical theory will indeed need to be significantly developed in the future in ways that will serve People generally on both sides of the unfounded binary.

All identity politics involve emotive activities and the Person Liberation Movements needs to become creative in this regard. The Person Liberation Movement might for instance want to design an official and global Person Liberation Movement flag as did the LGBTQ movement for itself with the rainbow flag. Theater could be one way to express emotions relating to Animal identity and other possible activities could involve communal crying whereby activists would share with each other the grief and the loss that many in the Person Liberation Movement experience with regard to anonymized industrialized radical evil. Another way would be to create a global social networking site for the Person Liberation Movement with high intellectual expectations, which could serve as an intellectual hub for the movement with collaborative digital newspapers and transformative, inclusive artistic activities of various kinds. Animal identity would be intended to transcend boundaries without erasing differences of various kinds and the Person Liberation Movement would need to find informal modes to organize such an emerging global community in ways that would make newcomers feel wanted, needed, appreciated and welcome. The Animal identity community should indeed be one which educates its activists in welcoming those who have only begun to understand that they are truly animals and that being carnal is certainly not something to be ashamed of.

The Person Liberation Movement and its historical progenitors have always been predominantly female in membership and this is something that the Person Liberation Movement has yet to appreciate as a strategic strength in and of itself. The term “woman” is highly oppressive in the sense that it violently excludes female legal minors, transgender females, unborn sentient females and quite significantly innumerable numbers of sentient female persons belonging to other taxa than the Homo genus. Humanist identity was not originally inclusive of so called “women” who were considered to belong to the realm of legal minors and “non-human” persons as the Rights of Man were not intended to include so called “women” who were later annexed, incorporated and epistemologically subordinated into the supremacist category of so called “Man.” The Person Liberation movement needs to become inclusive of feminism of a kind that would transcend current eco-feminism in the sense as fighting anti-body oppression (physionomism) generally as currently dominant American-Socialist feminism is predicated on deeply oppressive anti-body notions of idealizing Humanist supremacism that engages in systemic diversity denial and anti-body metaphysics bent on normalizing so called “women” on the basis of Masculinist social norms in ways that are geared towards ending all statistical group differences between the average Adam and Eve of metaphysical supremacist imagination.

However, Animal identity and the Person Liberation Movement have much to learn from the long struggles of historical feminism for emancipation. That is one important reason among others why the Person Liberation Movement and Animal identity needs to conceive of itself as a kind of feminism in the French tradition that would indeed transcend itself. This means fighting for emancipation of females generally beyond oppressive metaphysical assumptions of the hegemonic eschatology of Man. A different leadership style is needed in many parts of the global Person Liberation Movement whereby movement leaders need to commit to support and encourage each other emotionally in a leadership context where discussion is a virtue, not a contest. If the Person Liberation Movement is truly committed to universal emancipation and inter-personal respect; then the movement needs to start at home and train its leaders in truly respecting each other and view discussion and debate as an opportunity for critical creative learning through mutual listening rather than perpetuation of binary metaphysical disputes.

15. The Failure Fallacy

It is commonly assumed among leaders and employed professionals of the Person Liberation Movement that certain otherwise very effective political practices are outright “impossible” because the leaders/professionals themselves or their colleagues all failed in these respects. It is in contrast very difficult to determine without quality control which element or elements in a particular political practice of the Person Liberation Movement that caused a particular failure. An important cause of failure is lack of empathy with individual political counterparts in the sense that it is assumed that “everyone” more or less thinks the same way. There is also a frequent assumption that if a certain political practice that is effective elsewhere in politics and superficially seemed “impossible” two, five or ten years ago, then it cannot under any circumstances work today, tomorrow or a year from now either. Rather, this illustrates well the general futility of tactics that are not intrinsic components of effective overall strategies.

Facing consistent strategic failure is obviously difficult and even painful to movement professionals and it is not necessarily easy to reconcile virtually consistent paradigmatic strategic failure with a favorable self-image. Politics in liberal democracy tends to be complex and certain ways of argumentation fail simply due to lack of something so essential as strategic allies. While commending the diligent work of movement professionals, a word of caution is also very much called for. Merely because a motor does not work does not necessarily mean that everything in the motor is useless or broken. It is often sufficient to examine the motor, locate a single deficient component and replace the deficient component with a functioning one. This is also true with regard to emotionally challenging emancipation advocacy where professional advocates face consistent strategic failure while finding personal consolation in the ”false consciousness” of certain limited tactical successes. However, you do not necessarily know what is wrong until you (1) carefully examine the motor and (2) identify and (3) supplant the deficient component(s) and (4) test if the motor functions properly with the new component(s).

Here is a tentative and of course incomplete list of what could go wrong and does indeed go wrong with particular Animal advocacy in specific individual contexts:

Wrong advocacy

Wrong advocate

Wrong argument

Wrong articulation

Wrong assumption

Wrong behavior

Wrong belief

Wrong bodily communication

Wrong combination

Wrong competence

Wrong conception

Wrong conclusion

Wrong consciousness

Wrong context

Wrong counterpart

Wrong country

Wrong culture

Wrong discourse

Wrong discursive strategy

Wrong education

Wrong facial communication

Wrong field

Wrong ideology

Wrong individualization

Wrong interlocutor

Wrong intersection

Wrong interpersonal dynamics

Wrong logic

Wrong methodology

Wrong mode

Wrong occasion

Wrong order of argumentation

Wrong paradigm

Wrong party

Wrong person

Wrong personal background

Wrong personal category

Wrong personality

Wrong philosophy

Wrong place

Wrong premise

Wrong religion

Wrong rhetoric

Wrong science

Wrong specialization

Wrong strategy

Wrong structure

Wrong tactics

Wrong technique

Wrong terminology

Wrong thinking

Wrong time

Wrong timing

Wrong words

Merely because one person (or more than person) fails in a given context does not necessarily mean that each and everyone else would. Simply because a technique or line of argumentation that is effective elsewhere in politics failed in a particular individual context (or in more than one context) does not mean that it fails by default in every context relevant to the movement and so on and so forth.

This is a critical issue because the Person Liberation Movement cannot afford to permit itself to become paralyzed by the immense professional difficulties faced by ambitious and hardworking movement professionals committed to high ethical standards of individual and professional conduct. Finding out what specifically went wrong and why it did, is also very important of course, in the sense that movement professionals can only learn from mistakes once they know what really constituted the error, rather than become increasingly “traumatized” and effectively stigmatized by consistent strategic failure. Learning the real cause of failure is truly therapeutic and is necessary for both the Person Liberation Movement and its devoted employed professionals.

16. The Question of Distraction

The Person Liberation Movement is constantly faced with political distractions of various kinds that effectively take the media spotlight away from the real issue of normalized Human racial supremacist radical evil that appears on an increasingly gargantuan global scale. The distractions that the movement faces can be divided into at least three main types; xenophobic distractions, legal distractions and insensitivity distractions:

Xenophobic distractions project normalized domestic supremacist mass evils of “human” so called “majorities” onto Boar persons, Cat persons, Dog persons, Roe Deer persons, Foreigners, Jews, Mice persons, Mink persons, Muslims; predators generally, Rat persons, Snake persons, so called “vermin” generally; Wolf persons and so called “Zoophiles” generally who are all conveniently scapegoated. The terrible crimes to which so called ‘ordinary’ citizens are complicit in various roles such as consumers, employees and “owners” are thus effectively deflected onto others. Xenophobic singling out of Kosher/Halal killing practices in Secular/Christian countries while not opposing equally illegitimate and culturally Christian mass murder practices do quite effectively hide the underlying issue; namely that breeding other People for murder is wrong and is indeed itself an act of racism and slavery. The same phenomenon is found with regard to nationalist condemnations of imported evil products where such selective condemnations directly or indirectly serve to intrinsically justify domestically produced evil products.

Legal distractions are similarly problematic in the sense that abuse is assumed to be the exception rather than the normative basis on which enslavement and industrialized abuse of “non-human” persons is intrinsically founded on. Media spotlight on ostensibly exceptional abuses thus tend to reinforce the myth that abuse is an exception and not the rule. Cases of so called “negligence” in agro-businesses are similarly to xenophobic distractions used to hammer in the point that abuses are somehow “exceptions” to otherwise purportedly acceptable normative evil practices by deflecting personal responsibility elsewhere.

Insensitivity distractions usually arise in reaction to the Person Liberation Movement as to what is often inaccurately perceived to be the official position of the movement as a whole. Certain intellectuals in the function emancipation movement tend to make generalizations to the effect that certain supremacist and non-supremacist views that are famously held by Peter Singer are inaccurately presumed to be representative of the Person Liberation Movement generally. Overgeneralizing comparisons have been made between on the one hand the present gargantuan calamity that is perpetrated against billions of ”non-human” People and on the other hand the Shoah and the historical transatlantic enslavement. Such mutual insensitivities between different emancipatory movements indicate even further the need for the Person Liberation Movement to diplomatically reach out and befriend strategic allies across civil society. Insensitivity distractions also tend to presume that radical evil against ”non-human” persons is fundamentally acceptable and that it is rather the Person Liberation Movement that constitutes an unacceptable exception to this ostensibly acceptable condition and present order of things.

Dealing with this reality of many different distractions is strategically challenging since it may indeed be tempting to tactically use distractions to get media attention, gain more access to governments/legislators and of course so as to influence public opinion. The Person Liberation Movement needs instead to devise improved communication strategies that quite effectively communicate that abuse is the rule rather than the exception as far as the legal status of enslaved ”non-human” persons is concerned and this might e.g. also be quite helpfully communicated through strategically devised and designed graphic T-shirt slogans.

T-shirt communications generally is a field where significantly improved and focused professional communications efforts are needed and this should certainly include promoting Animal identity. The Person Liberation Movement should hence make much greater efforts in designing and marketing strategic & attractive T-shirts to its members with a pricing that is as low as possible. This will serve to reinforce movement identification as members (and in the future as identifying Animals) as those who wear strategic and moderately provocative T-shirts will find themselves in a constructive explanatory position, such as to elaborate on why they themselves are Animals and why enslavement generally is intrinsically abusive with the exception of course of the BDSM community whose non-abusive practices mimic sexual abuse but do not themselves constitute abuse.

The fact that abuse is the norm and not the exception is indeed a strategic message that the Person Liberation Movement needs to integrate into its external and internal communications generally. Whatever the movement does and says; this message needs to be part of it, explicitly or implicitly, consciously or subconsciously.

17. The Problem of Bisected Ontology

One serious strategic problem that the Person Liberation Movement faces is that of supremacist terminology that bisects broader and general phenomena through the unscientific human/non-human binary.

Circuses with enslaved “non-human” performers are not challenged for using forced labor. Blood sports are not referred to as gladiator games and incarcerated “non-human” persons are not referred to as jailed innocents. Buying evil carnal products is not described as scavenging and producing/consuming lactic evil products and ova evil products is not described as parasitism. Cruel mass killing of infant roosters is not described as infanticide and sexism. Practices surrounding “human” supremacist omnivorism are not described as handling of stolen goods or body snatching. Harmful experiments on “non-human” persons through enslaving incarceration are neither described as unscientific nor as scientific torture. “Human” privileges formally denied to all “non-human” persons who are capable of their exercise are not described as racial supremacism and leisure hunting is not described as lynching. Extinction of taxa of sentient persons at the hands of “civilization” is not described as genocide. Trade in enslavement of “non-human” persons is not described as slave trade and crowded factory farming is not described as concentration camps. It must be added of course that the term concentration camp for non-combatant members of the Homo genus was not invented in Nazi Germany but was used and practiced as early as by the British colonial government during the Second Boer War of 1899-1902 where in what is now South Africa, civilians who were neither convicted, nor charged with any crime but were yet still confined en masse to administrative detention in crowded concentration camps with very high death rates. And sorry no, slave trade and concentration camps are not historically limited to transatlantic enslavement and the Shoah.

The discursive predicament of bisected ontology is not limited to words that refer to calamities but is found in many other “neutral” vocabularies as well and especially so in academia. Identifying, modifying and coining non-supremacist terminology will require serious individual and collective efforts towards a successful departure from discursive and terminological racial supremacism. The Person Liberation Movement needs to keep itself open to terminological invention by its members and the potential for terminological improvement and its political potential should never be underestimated. Even a quite suitable term might someday be supplanted by a better term or usage. It needs to be emphasized of course that there might be more than one good term for the same phenomenon and that good synonyms are certainly not something bad.

Jacques Derrida did not merely recognize the need for significant terminological transformation on the part of intellectuals of the Person Liberation Movement, but also encouraged writing persons to venture into “the impossible”; meaning to think what is conventionally considered to be outside of the economy of the possible and indeed use their own words. Terminological transformation is a foundational step towards a different paradigm, a crucial step that needs to be followed by other strategic steps towards universal emancipation.

There is a certain messianic structure at play in the Person Liberation Movement in the sense that expectations for a very different person-friendly ethical paradigm of universal emancipation are indefinitely deferred. Beliefs about the economy of the possible tend to be largely prejudicial, anecdotal, mythological, self-defeating, overgeneralizing and even metaphysically “superstitious” and are very much founded in relative lack of imagination as the ever-changing limits of imagination do constitute one of the most powerful limitations on the economy of the possible. It is thus necessary to think strategically beyond the current supremacist paradigm of bisected ontology and crucially in terms of how the economy of the possible can be significantly broadened in ways ethical leading towards universal emancipation, as bisected ontology is indeed something that other emancipatory movements have successfully overcome.

18. Understanding Diversity Denial

The discursive constitution of a fictional yet hegemonic supremacist life category should be of great interest to intellectuals of an emancipatory movement advocating emancipation for persons denied personhood. It is not only that “non-human” persons are not a discrete group or category in the sense of together being genetically or socially distinct and coherent from so called “human” persons, but the extremely overgeneralized stereotypical metaphysical unity of the supremacist category itself is perpetuated through systemic diversity denial with regard to cognitive diversity within the Homo genus. Indeed, Derrida describes both racists and anti-racists as fanatics, but what does this mean?

The so called “humanity” is a theological abstraction of Secular/Christian culture which was historically extended by the Catholic Church in order to theologically legitimize colonial missionary activity outside of Europe following the encounter with the so called “New World.” The unscientific human/non-human dichotomy is based on systematic diversity denial of cognitive diversity on both sides of the unfounded binary. Complex societies and cognitive diversity among “non-human” persons are discursively reduced to ostensibly mere “instinctual behavior” of alleged genetic automata by biologistic (biological determinist) ideologues while cognitive diversity on the supremacist side of the binary that does not conform to European Liberal/Socialist/Conservative idealized Humanist supremacism is either classified as “disabled” pathological “exceptions” or disregarded altogether by those largely bent on subjecting the “dangerous” nature to the “civilized” culture of Secular/Christian space.

The illusory unity of the supremacist category is also very much oppressive in the sense as denying the differences of many nominal members of the supremacist category. While in the first half of the 20th century, Jewish minorities in Europe were widely chastised for being on average far more socio-economically successful than the Christian “majority” populations; Muslim communities that have arrived in Europe during the past hundred years are similarly now chastised for being on average far less socio-economically successful than the indigenous Christian so called “majority” population.

The underlying discursive motive why racist “anti-racists” oppose recognizing the value of cognitive diversity among and within taxa of the Homo genus is that they tend to believe that it is indeed legitimate to oppress other persons for being cognitively different and for belonging to other taxa, in the sense that they do tend to support continued non-enfranchisement of persons denied personhood on the basis that they belong to other taxa which are ostensibly intrinsically cognitively “inferior” to the fictional supremacist category.

Denial and negation of cognitive diversity with regard to both sides of the unscientific binary serve to prop up the unfounded dichotomy by falsely presenting the two sides of the baseless binary as each internally cognitively homogenous. Recognizing cognitive diversity even between taxa of the Homo genus would in the worldview of racist anti-racists lead to return to racism of the worst kinds against many nominal members of the current supremacist life category.

The predominant American-Socialist paradigm in feminism is founded on the same kind of racial supremacist diversity denial with regard to cognitive diversity within the Homo genus, both between average Adam & Eve and between different legally adult females, including in different taxa. Both political communities represent forms of idealizing Humanist supremacism and believe that “nature” and “natural science” must be defeated by “culture” and “cultural science.” The consequence is inevitably that females and non-Europeans who are nominally part of the supremacist category are expected to become cognitively normalized to the cognitive norms of the illusory supremacist category.

Diversity denial of cognitive diversity is thus imposed on both sides of the binary so as to be discursively capable of continuing to claim that sentient persons generally can be easily segregated in ways quite familiar into merely two life categories, namely (a) the supremacist category and (b) persons denied personhood. Denying persons personhood is generally based on the assumption that persons who are not classified as part of the supremacist life category are sub-persons due to ostensibly being cognitively “inferior.”

Diversity denial with regard to cognitive diversity is a strategic problem on both sides on the binary since it constitutes systemic discrimination against both persons of “non-human” origins whose cognitive activity and diversity whereof is denied as well as against the majority of members of the Homo genus who are either of non-European or mixed European and non-European origins. It is practiced by both left and right and perpetuated by a shared belief in the foundational myths of Hellenist/Christian/Secular metaphysics and especially the unscientific notion of tabula rasa which was espoused by both John Locke and Karl Marx.

Once it is no longer considered legitimate to oppress other persons for being taxonomically, genetically, cognitively or indeed somatically different, then it is no longer that “dangerous” to celebrate the value of cognitive diversity within and between contemporary taxa of the Homo genus. Despite the fanfares among white folks around the world, including in places such as Norway, about the election of Barack Obama, an inter-taxonomic person, as president of the United States and who has roots in Luoland, Kenya; the fact remains that a highly disproportionate number of African Americans are systematically oppressed and discriminated in the sense of being expected to conform to the idealizing myths of European cognitive standards and when many do not, then that is blamed on immorality and lack of religion by the right and on all-compassing-ubiquitous racism by the left. African Americans are thus in practice only accorded equality with European Americans to the degree that they cognitively conform with idealized European American cognitive norms and legally adult females are similarly at best accorded equality with legally adult males, to the degree that they conform to idealized cognitive standards of legally adult male genetic Europeans. While in the past, African Americans in the United States were mostly collectively discriminated on account of pigmentation without individual distinction, many are now individually oppressed for not conforming to idealized European supremacist cognitive standards and legally adult females of various taxa are similarly discriminated for not conforming to such idealized male European cognitive norms.

This state of things is not particularly surprising considering that both John Locke and Karl Marx professed belief in the obscure, idealizing Hellenist doctrine of tabula that presumes that all who are were not born diagnostically disabled were born with equal cognitive potential. Feminists and anti-racists in academia who believe in the humanist myth of tabula rasa tend to believe that they need not prove that this “zero-hypothesis” is actually true and scientifically correct and that they need not do field studies of their own in this regard. This is culturally quite understandable considering that idealizing Humanist supremacism is after all foundational for virtually all politics in Secular/Christian space. Idealizing tabula rasa is indeed quite a prominent secular mystery cult in academia and in politics generally in Christendom.

Cognitive diversity among “non-human” persons is also denied in the sense that “non-human” persons are subjected to a distinctly phonocentric epistemology of communication whereby communication that is not intrinsically reducible to oral communication has been systematically disregarded by means of ignoring and deliberately not seeking to understand the communicative dimension of the physics of life. Why is it for instance that I can sense that someone is staring from far away at my back despite myself not seeing the person since he is far behind me ?

Notwithstanding the fact that so many different organisms are still by far more multifaceted and sophisticated than are the most advanced of machines; it is still assumed by phonocentric racial supremacists that “non-human” persons could not possibly engage in communication in ways akin to that which many machines are now capable of. While feline and canine members of human-led households tend to constantly attempt to communicate with so called “human” fellow family members; it is nevertheless the so called “we”, family members of the supremacist category who do not understand and usually do not seriously attempt to understand what the so called “they” try so hard to tell the so called “us.” “Non-human” communities have their own idioms, i.e. modes of communication which have long since been ignored and have mostly been considered mere “automatic” response to stimuli, although there is now increasing academic interest in learning to better understand these immensely diverse cultural worlds of communication.

Diversity denial is not merely unscientific; it is a key aspect of supremacist culture in both politics and academia and serves to perpetuate the fictional internal cognitive unity within each of the two binary categories. The strategic task ahead is therefore to embrace and understand most of present cognitive diversity on both sides of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy and to begin the never-ending task of articulating equality as situational and contextual and crucially pertaining to very particular and indeed relevant aspects. Who is one’s equal depends thus entirely upon which aspect is ethically relevant in a particular venue.

19. The Art and Science of Iconoclasm

The strategic breaking of taboos is an important and highly ritualized cultural practice in Secular/Christian culture and is also known as art scandals. Here, it is interesting to make a certain comparison between the main Person Liberation Movements in two different countries, Sweden and the United States. While the American PETA is highly focused on breaking taboos through provocative television commercials and publicity stunts of various kinds, this has certainly proven much less strategically effective than intended. Animal Rights Sweden (Förbundet Djurens Rätt) has in contrast focused on parliamentary lobbying and has this way developed a professional culture of a certain strategic pessimism for the mid-term, where political taboos pertaining to idealized humanist supremacism tend to be considered to be strategically insurmountable for the so called “foreseeable” future. PETA is somewhat strategically misguided in the sense that many television viewers tend to be increasingly indifferent towards and indeed care less about commercial modes of communication and commercials are decidedly not the locus where taboos are strategically broken in Secular/Christian culture.

Rather, what is needed on both sides of the Atlantic (and indeed elsewhere around the world) is an integrated global strategy for how to break strategically critical taboos of Human racial supremacist discourse in Secular (i.e. culturally Christian) political cultures around the world, including in open societies outside of Christendom that are nevertheless dominated by Secular/Christian political culture as in the cases of India, Israel and Japan.

The two compared organizations are similar in the sense that both have systematically utilized corporate professional communication strategies to the virtual exclusion of strategic tools developed in critical fields in academia, a predisposition of a kind that has had a distinctly limiting effect with regard to the respective perceived “economy of the possible.”

While strategic taboo breaking in Secular/Christian culture is centered on prestigious art exhibitions, this can be strategically supplemented with activities in other venues, artistic and non-artistic, as long as there is understanding that experimental art exhibitions constitute the central and determining locus for taboo breaking in this globally hegemonic culture. The strategic supremacist taboos that need to be dismantled should be identified, understood genealogically and theoretically, classified and listed in order of priority in the sense of their internal strategic relationships. E.g. it might be much easier to break taboo C, if taboo A and taboo B have already been undone in this order and so on and so forth.

This will require systematic visual artistic deconstruction of the very mental structures that underlie Human racial supremacist culture as well as improved understanding of the intrinsic workings of Secular/Christian political culture inside and outside of Christendom, for which ritualized artistic taboo breaking as a kind of secular iconoclasm is a central operative feature. There are innumerable talented, usually less known artists around the world who could potentially be professionally empowered through high quality targeted educational programs on the part of the global Person Liberation Movement and which would offer visual artists enhanced ethical, aesthetical, genealogical and historical understanding of industrialized evil, past and present. Of course, the Person Liberation Movement should at first seek to identify artists who are already paying members of the movement. Such educational programs should be led by persons well versed in the strategic intersection of artistic iconoclasm and critical theory.

Appropriate understanding of Human racial supremacist taboos that pose strategic obstacles to universal emancipation and their historical, genealogical and contemporary discursive context requires engaging in critical theory while the taboos themselves should indeed very much be undone through creative strategic artistic provocations in prestigious venues. Although every involved artist must find her own semiotic means towards discursive change, the preparatory educational efforts must not be designed randomly, but should form intrinsic parts of well-prepared comprehensive strategic global efforts geared towards strategic change of paradigm involving the eventual undoing of Human racial supremacist hegemony in contemporary public discourse.

20. Delineating Abuse

The Person Liberation Movement is by far the most inclusive of all emancipatory movements in terms of life categories, yet movement intellectuals and movement activists are uniquely and peculiarly exclusive of themselves and other primates nominally included in the supremacist category, despite the indisputable fact that all persons are Animals. This has of course significant and severely detrimental political consequences in the sense that both voting primates and elected primates tend to be much less concerned with political demands in which they themselves are not included as intended beneficiaries.

An important question for the future is that of the limits of universal emancipation. What kind of bodily practices do require emancipation and which ones do not? This issue has in the Person Liberation Movement so far been faced mostly with regard to so called “Zoophiles.” However, the very notion and construct of “Zoophile” is highly problematic in several regards. The myth that so called “human” persons on the one hand and “non-human” persons on the other, constitute two each internally cognitively homogenous groups and that any sexual interaction between the two sides of the unscientific binary, is reducible to the emotions of “human” persons only, is obviously preposterous, especially since there is no consideration at all of sexualities of “non-human” persons. One hegemonic assumption in Secular/Christian society is that sexuality is intrinsically categorical in the sense that attraction is fundamentally determined by fixed life categories of those who attract rather than by individual traits generally perceived in encounters with other persons. In parallel, it is assumed that mutually interactive encounters between certain categories rather than in between individuals constitute intrinsic sexual abuse. What is politically considered sexual abuse does very much vary by jurisdiction so that some jurisdictions do indeed permit sexual abuse of “non-human” persons. Other jurisdictions have outlawed emotional relations altogether across the supremacist binary – that are considered “sexual” in the hegemonic global culture of the supremacist life category.

Of course, there is no such thing as “Zoophilia,” as this is an extremely overgeneralized humanist construct of distinctly ecclesiastical origin which serves to discursively polarize “human” persons against “non-human” persons as if all persons with emotions could be meaningfully reduced to two internally cognitively homogenous fictional categories. After all, what does one “human” person who tends to be attracted to at least some Dolphin persons have in common with another “human” person who tends to be attracted towards at least some Elephant persons? Any shared desire between these two Human persons would after all be highly likely to be directed towards members of the supremacist racist category. And what about dolphins and elephants who happen to be mutually attracted to each other? What about tactile relations between a cat person and a “human” person which is not considered sexual from the point of view of supremacist culture but from which the cat person derives significant erotic pleasure? Why should racial supremacist conceptions of sexuality be imposed on those who may perceive emotions quite differently? Is it also not true that even non-abusive so called “heterosexual” relations among legal adults are frequently perceived in very different, even polarized ways by those involved through what is known as mutual consent but is rather a social construction?

One common argument is that “non-human” persons cannot be sexual equals with persons belonging to the supremacist category, because the “non-human” persons are enslaved. However, this excludes sexual encounters/relationships that emerge between free “human” persons and free “non-human” persons. It is thus the state of non-emancipation that is the fundamental problem, not inter-taxonomic emotional encounters/relationships. It should be recalled in this context that there was a time, not long ago, when certain jurisdictions proscribed inter-taxonomic emotional relations even within the Homo genus.

Emotion is something that is generally difficult to express within the Person Liberation Movement. The movement offers no venues for public collective mourning or expression of public collective frustration and is yet to establish an identity politics founded in Animal identity. It is also not easy for most of those involved in the Person Liberation Movement to find appropriate words to describe gargantuan evils that are considered morally acceptable among so many elected primates. The locus at which supremacist culture generally fails morally, including in the official stands of all historical and contemporary sexual emancipation movements, is to strictly divorce abuse from non-abuse. The line has so far always been drawn in ways so that many abusive encounters/relationships are allowed while many non-abusive encounters/relationships are disallowed. As a comparison in this regard, the completely arbitrary so called “age of consent” and hence the political default definition of sexual abuse across age-groups in member states of the European Union varies from age 13 in Spain to age 18 in Malta with legal ages of consent of 14, 15, 16 and 17 years all represented among the other EU member states. It is typical for the mass media in each jurisdiction to uncritically consider their jurisdiction’s own arbitrary chronological delimination to constitute what tends to amount to a sacralized limit of European honor culture.

The ethico-political challenge is to ethically and legally distinguish abuse from non-abuse and not merely with regard to sexual encounters/relationships but with respect to encounters/relationships generally between persons within and between taxa. The fact that some employers abuse some employees does not mean that all encounters/relationships between employers and employees are intrinsically abusive and this is true of many other relational configurations between persons. The fact that some ties in a particular abstracted personal configuration of personal categories are abusive does not necessarily mean that all are and this applies to both sexual and non-sexual ties. However, mythological abuses do serve to deflect political attention from real abuses, whether exceptional, normative or as exceptions within exceptions. E.g. attacking the sovereign Jewish nation by systematically holding Israel to distinctly separate and unequal standards is a common way for many dictators, in both Christian and Muslim countries, to deflect attention from their own gargantuan systematic abuses against their own peoples.

It does not require advanced intellectual capacity to engage emotionally in mutual encounters/relationships between persons, but it does require being an Animal! Not only are all members of the supremacist category themselves Animals, but all those members of the supremacist category who are purportedly chastely exclusively attracted (as if there was such a thing) to other members of said supremacist category are themselves clearly “Zoophiles” since those whom they desire are indisputably Animals themselves. What is after all the present and historical Person Liberation Movement, other than mostly chaste, non-sexual “Zoophilia”? Distinguishing abuse from non-abuse is not as simple as merely stigmatizing certain abstracted configurations of personal categories through systemic anti-body oppression.

The unique, individual Cat person may consider being cuddled to be a profoundly erotic experience which does not mean that it is intrinsically abusive. However, inter-taxonomic encounters/relationships need to be understood from the perspectives of all those involved and not merely of those theologically lumped together into the extremely overgeneralized, present, fictional racist supremacist category. Denying emancipation to so called “minorities” of sexual practice – without repeatedly established statistically representative quantitative etiologies of statistically significant harm for particular categories – is not only pervasively and intrinsically harmful but deflects attention from the crucial task of distinguishing harm from non-harm and abuse from non-abusive, as this lack of correct distinction generally constitutes one of the most serious discursive obstacles to universal emancipation generally.

Distinguishing abuse from non-abuse is indeed a central ethical challenge for the Person Liberation Movement as emancipation generally is prevented by systemic mislineation between abuse and non-abuse in Secular/Christian so called “civilization”, better named as the culture of abuse. Indeed, present industrialized mass evil is largely based on draconian legalistic mislineations whereby only practices of mass evil that contradict certain state regulations are considered intrinsically abusive by constituting so called “negligence.” There are after all so many profoundly evil mass practices that are considered non-abusive by most elected primates, practices that are systemically legitimized by means of consistent bureaucratic mislineation of abuse and this includes private, corporate and governmental practices/behaviors of various kinds towards various formalized categories of persons with emotions, including towards many different personal categories of those nominally included in the supremacist category. Establishing proper, rigorous and precise ethico-political delineation of abuse generally in current supremacist society, is indeed one of the most central and critical theoretical and political challenges that the present Person Liberation Movement faces.

21. Understanding the Shoah

Since contemporary supremacist morality is generally couched in a Nazicentric non-understanding where ultimate evil is no longer consigned to the hell of the future, but to the hell of the past, which incidentally serves to efface the fact that the most widespread, large-scale, gargantuan, industrialized evil crime ever committed does not only belong to the past, but is indeed perpetrated in the very present. Moving on to a person-friendly paradigm of universal emancipation thus requires understanding the Shoah from the perspective of its perpetrators rather than through the systemic prejudice of Hellenistic/Christian/Secular metaphysics as this will also help us to better understand and name central aspects of the present ongoing gargantuan calamity.

The Nazis could not argue that Jews were inferior in terms of intelligence as Ashkenazi Jews do tend to perform extremely well on average in psychometric testing and this was perhaps one of the reasons why the Nazis abolished IQ testing of conscripts in the German military in the early 1940’s although they did not go so far as to proscribe psychometric testing in academia. Since Ashkenazi Jews perform much better than indigenous Europeans in intelligence testing, the Nazi German case against the Jews rested on ostensible intrinsic taxonomic moral inferiority, a claim which also tends to be central to anti-body arguments against emancipation of “non-human” persons. Statistical differences in crime statistics between indigenous Europeans and Jews, to the effect that Jews were overrepresented in white-collar crimes were used to stereotype all Jews as intrinsic criminals although these differences largely correlated with statistical differences in choice of profession between indigenous Europeans and Jews as Jews were similarly underrepresented in “regular” blue-collar crimes and were overall on average statistically much less criminal than indigenous Europeans. The subsequent documentation that followed upon the perpetration of the Shoah did discredit any further Nazi claims to taxonomic moral superiority over Jews and the only remaining way to maintain such claims is thus for contemporary Nazis to simply deny history.

Why then were the Nazis so determined to kill the Jews, why not simply plan to deport the Jews to Siberia as the Nazi leadership planned to do with the Poles? While there were other important reasons as well, an important motivation was no doubt that the Nazis did recognize certain Jewish taxa to constitute a cognitively advanced evolutionary group strategy which in the Nazis’ distinctly prejudicial perspective successfully out-competed indigenous Europeans in the struggle for control over resources and power. It must be kept in mind that the National Socialists were not only fascist nationalists but socialists as well as they viewed Jews through essentially the same prism by which Marxists view capitalists, namely as ostensible socio-economic “parasites.” This also helps explain why the Soviet Union developed into an ideologically Anti-Semitic state, beginning even before the demise of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1953 as captured Nazi propagandists were given new jobs in Moscow while others were welcomed in Cairo.

The accusation of parasitism is of course nonsensical since ethno-religious taxa whose members on average are vastly and disproportionally socio-economically successful as are the Jains, the Parsis as well as the crypto-Jewish Christians of the state of Kerala in southern India – who are far from being “parasites” and do contribute quite significantly and to a disproportionate degree to the economy of India and as immigrants to the US high-tech economy. The same is true with regard to on average socio-economically high-performing West Asian (Crypto-Jewish) Christians and on average socio-economically high-performing Mandaeans of West Asia as well as with regard to those Jewish taxa (notably not all Jewish ethnicies) that on average are socio-economically relatively high-performing, including e.g. the crypto-Jewish community of Turkey known among outsiders as the Dönmeh.

Roma people were formally targeted for genocide at a comparatively late stage in Nazi genocide planning and the fact that many severely discriminated and socially stigmatized so called “anti-social” Roma communities tend to be on average strongly overrepresented in “ordinary” crime was a key motive for perpetrating genocide against them and as on average less “law-obedient” it was a population that was difficult to control for any government, especially peripatetic Roma populations in Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe. Statistical differences in average crime levels as compared to indigenous Europeans thus served to motivate taxonomic mass murder leading to genocide against the Jewish and Roma peoples. This should be compared with the fate of about 400 inter-taxonomic ethnically German so called “Rhineland Bastards” who were conceived as a result of encounters/relationships between indigenous female German citizens and African French soldiers stationed in the French-occupied Rhineland since after the end of WWI. The “Rhineland Bastards” were legally discriminated and forcibly sterilized but neither collectively deported nor collectively murdered by the Nazi regime as the “Rhineland Bastards” were apparently not considered to pose a significant political threat to Nazi rule as they were ethnic Germans who did not form a community of their own and usually did not know each other either.

The T4 Action program targeted for mass murder, among others, German citizens with cognitive diagnostic limitations. Such adult German citizens were already mostly incarcerated in gender-segregated pseudo-medical institutions intended to prevent procreation among these jailed innocents as was the chaste international norm in economically developed countries at the time, so the killings were therefore merely a way of saving money for the German government. Over 400 000 indigenous German citizens with hereditary somatic conditions and whose mere procreation the Nazis sought to prevent were instead forcibly sterilized.

The historical existence of the T4 Action program is the historical reason why some contemporary intellectuals are concerned that future legalization of euthanasia will “inevitably” lead to pressure on persons with diagnostic functional limitations to agree to end life early so as to “save money” and not be “a burden onto others” as persons with diagnostic functional limitations in contemporary supremacist societies are indeed generally stigmatized as suspect cheating “burdens” (i.e. another version of the accusation of socio-economic “parasitism”) rather than as people with potential. While there is certainly cause for concern, the concern about inevitable consequences follows the same so typical and pervasive logic of Secular/Christian culture which deliberately refrains from appropriately and rigorously distinguishing abuse from non-abuse in so many fields of anti-body oppression. Indeed, this logic of deliberately refraining from differentiating abuse from non-abuse was central to the Shoah in the sense that law-abiding Jews and law-abiding Roma were viciously murdered on account of being considered immoral by extension because minorities within minorities did have criminal records as did of course many indigenous citizens of Germany.

Indigenous “homosexuals”, indigenous Jehovah’s witnesses, indigenous freemasons and indigenous communists in Nazi Germany were not morphologically different from other indigenous German citizens, but these communities had both in-group loyalties and (with the exception of ”homosexuals”) had international loyalties that the Nazi leadership apparently feared as totalitarian regimes generally tend to fear all alternative or parallel loyalties and centers of power among their citizens. Furthermore, children of “homosexuals” do not exhibit “homosexual” behavior more than do other human children and this cannot have been completely unknown to the Nazi German leadership, including to the carnivorous Adolf Hitler. The targeting of these categories for political mass murder is more similar to the way the Stalin regime structurally targeted various categories of citizens of Soviet society through mass deportations to Soviet forced labor concentration camps, than to the German genocide against the Jews and the Roma.

A number of different modes of mass murder in Nazi Germany can thus be distinguished, including economic mass murder, political mass murder and taxonomic mass murder. These are important distinctions since these three forms of mass murder are constituent elements of much of the present gargantuan calamity carried out against “non-human” persons. In addition, scientific torture was perpetrated by the Nazis against incarcerated persons denied personhood (both “non-human” persons and “sub-human” persons) and is presently being perpetrated on a gargantuan scale against millions of innocently jailed persons denied personhood.

A new person-friendly paradigm of universal emancipation requires inter alia understanding the Shoah rather than deliberately refraining from understanding it in the fashion of a Hellenistic/Christian/Secular mystery cult. While some European Jewish leaders quite mistakenly assume that Nazicentric morality is conducive to the physical safety of Jews, the opposite is true as Nazicentric morality has led the liberal-democratic world to consistently ignore the historical and present fact that senior leaders of Israel’s neighboring adversaries openly and publically have long incited to genocide against Jews. Even the NSDAP did not explicitly incite to genocide against Jews as does Hamas although this aim was certainly indirectly implied in official NSDAP rhetoric. The wars of 1948 and 1967 were both prominently preceded by official calls by senior leaders for exterminating the Jews generally and this is almost completely ignored in Nazicentric Secular/Christian culture on the implied basis that the Shoah is ostensibly “unique.”

Jews and Christians have traditionally adhered to the baseless notion that Jews are “unique.” While there is certainly nothing unique about Jews or Israel, “the-Jews-are-unique” fallacy is used to systematically peddle crude war propaganda to the effect that Israel is ostensibly “a racist apartheid state” when the indisputable legal fact is that the Palestinian minority among Israel’s citizenry does not only enjoy full legislated civic equality with the Jewish majority of citizens, but is more prosperous and more free in the Jewish state than are Palestinian citizens of any Muslim state. West Asian Christian citizens of Israel who like other West Asian Christians (modern Arameans) are on average socio-economically high-performing and while not being ethnic Palestinians themselves, do nevertheless form part of Palestinian minority society within Israel’s citizenry and are on average more socio-economically high-performing than are on average the totality of all nominal Jews in Israel.

Socio-economically high-performing ethno-religious taxa that are indeed – as the Nazis implicity recognized with regard to certain Jewish taxa – cognitively advanced evolutionary strategies and should rather than become subject to scapegoating, persecution and mass murder, be viewed in some respects as ethical models for ethical evolution and ethical economic development (such as e.g. with respect to Jain veganism) without discrimination between equals. By recognizing, respecting and genuinely appreciating cognitive diversity within and beyond the current Humanist supremacist category and by beginning to scientifically name the various mechanisms, practices and structures that did underlie the Shoah and by doing so without overgeneralizing, it will become substantially easier to more precisely and more accurately understand without prejudicial overgeneralization various practices, discourses and structures of anti-body prejudice generally.

22. Understanding Cyclical Emancipation

The history of emancipatory movements has a certain shared genealogy of spectral reappearance so that one emancipatory movement more or less follows historically after another. At each stage of achieved nominal emancipation, Humanist supremacism is nominally extended although the pro forma included persons tend to remain structurally excluded by Humanist idealization based on earlier, more restrictive versions of the thus expanding racial supremacist category. The successfully achieved emancipation typically (but not necessarily) then becomes the basis of an upgraded idealizing Humanist supremacism. This means that successfully achieved emancipation typically becomes the racial supremacist basis for denying emancipation to yet others. This is how successfully achieved emancipation is repeatedly and cyclically transformed into an increasingly broadened racial supremacism. While the nominal categories of those denied emancipation are replaced with time, fundamental questions need to be asked about the structually cyclical character of historical emancipation. While narratives of emancipation are nominally founded on linear notions of secular eschatological time, emancipation itself as an historical phenomenon is a distinctly cyclical event.

The political battles of emancipation are usually lengthy, spanning over decades and the question needs to be posed why this should necessarily be so? For a long time, there is a certain discursive choreography of complete bio-supremacist rejection, which after decades of discursive struggle ends in nominal submersion into the only slightly modified, yet nominally expanding supremacist bio-category. One peculiar feature with regard to cyclical emancipation is that despite the enormous resistance usually exerted against emancipation along the way, emancipation is rarely reversed, with the introduction of Islamist rule or Fascist rule being the main exceptions in this regard. There is a certain political culture of assimilation at work in cyclical emancipation in the sense that those emancipated are effectively submerged into racial supremacism and the fictional supremacist category of the day which is thus superficially nominally extended. The original post-emancipation attitude of secular culture towards Jewish minorities is thus continually extended to yet many others who were not initially included in racial supremacist identity politics. The previously non-emancipated are thus converted into Human racial supremacists through assimilation into the religious/secular imperialism of secular supremacist political society.

The condition of cyclical emancipation means that every emancipatory movement begins from a distinctly disadvantageous position and has to labor for decades to effect change. All emancipatory movements oppose at least some forms of anti-body oppression; however the hegemonic cyclical framework for emancipation is distinctly unhelpful in the sense that emancipation tends to serve to reinforce racial supremacism through compulsory conversion to Secular/Christian supremacism. There is of course also the problem of anti-body prejudice (physionomism) within emancipatory movements. Indeed, the anti-body prejudice within emancipatory movements is a central part of how cyclical emancipation functions as the victory of one emancipatory movement is usually subsequently translated into and articulated as bio-supremacism against yet others denied emancipation.

There are two main reasons why this is so. First, existing identity politics reproduces certain further categorically deferred limitations of emancipation and second, the underlying problem of anti-body prejudice in a more general sense is not identified because of the metaphysical focus on abstracted, overgeneralized life categories misperceived through Master-Slave Morality. These prejudicial elements need to be supplanted by contiguous Animal identity and associated ethical identity politics along with understanding that although anti-body prejudice (physionomism) is not the only form of prejudice, this is the problem for which universal emancipation is the solution. Animal identity would also provide psychological liberation for many in the sense that not only are persons denied personhood emancipated, but citizens are liberated from the psychological shackles of idealizing Humanist supremacism as all would be legally granted contextual and situational equality between persons. The ultimate theoretical test of universal emancipation would be that it would recognize upon encounter or record, the personhood of sentient individuals from other parts of universe.

Current emancipatory movements will need to be seriously and strategically extended in ways that will distinctly transcend contemporary supremacism:

  1. Opposition to racism should be extended to all oppression justified by recourse to zoological taxonomy.
  2. Feminism should be extended to include emancipation of all sentient females.

III. Zionism should be taken seriously in advancing universal self-determination and especially so for other indigenous peoples as well.

  1. Queer emancipation should be extended to defamed sexual groups generally.
  2. Functional emancipation should not be limited to members of supremacism.
  3. Youth Liberation should include young and not-yet-born persons generally.

VII. Person Liberation should not be limited by the supremacist binary.

The next strategic level involves certain modes of discursive merger, certain changing of strategic tracks and indeed significantly transforming emancipatory discourse itself:

Political Problem: Anti-body prejudice (physionomism)

Political Framework: Animal identity & Animal identity politics

Political Objective: Universal Emancipation

However, this requires entering a new universally emancipatory paradigm as an ever-extended prejudicial Hellenist/Christian/Secular metaphysics of idealizing Humanist supremacism is what fuels this distinctly impeding genealogical condition of cyclical emancipation which as an historical phenomenon usually turns against itself. A new paradigm of universal emancipation requires understanding and recognizing the general cross-categorical problem of anti-body oppression as this condition no doubt needs to be much further and closer examined through critical theory, the scientific discipline which studies oppression and which seeks to undo oppression by means of changing the discourse of representatives by changing strategic representations of sentient life.

The deplorable fact that there is plenty of anti-body prejudice in the field of critical theory (and especially so against “non-human” persons and Jewish persons as was similarly the case in medieval Christian culture) should not only be recognized as a significant strategic obstacle to universal emancipation, but also as an opportunity for transformative critique and paradigmatic strategic change. Indeed, a new paradigm of universal emancipation requires learning to live with diversity in diversity beyond the shackles of idealizing Humanist supremacism. Entering a new paradigm of universal emancipation requires ending the unhelpful association with the distinctly oppressive pattern of cyclical emancipation, i.e. emancipation that turns into the very anti-body supremacism which it is ostensibly so vehemently opposed to. This problem exists in all emancipatory movements and identifying internal anti-body prejudice as a distinct phenomenon that is not reducible to particular life categories of sentient persons is no doubt strategically indispensible in so far as making strategic progress towards universal emancipation.

23. Rethinking Commercial Communications

The broader ethical question of commercial communication is an issue that has been almost entirely avoided in the Person Liberation Movement. While PETA is identified in the US public eye with “controversial” television commercials, the global Person Liberation Movement tends to seek to emulate widely used corporate professional communication formulas. In contrast, mass advertisement plays a key role in promotion of evil/unethical products/services and in generally manipulating consumers so as to induce them to make unthinking, bad consumer choices which they would not had otherwise opted for had they been given complete information and consumer markets are hence severely distorted. Of course, this does not mean that all advertisement is intrinsically bad, but rather that the question of advertisement constitutes a significant ethico-political problem and is one which needs to be better understood and better addressed by the Person Liberation Movement.

All evil/unethical products/services should be phased-out. However those products that cannot yet be outlawed due to lack of sensually indistinguishable ethical product alternatives should nevertheless become subject to a comprehensive ban on consumer-oriented proactive marketing of evil/unethical products/services generally. Such a comprehensive ban would very much help induce the business sector to develop only ethical products, since ethical products would be the only ones that the business sector would be able to proactively market to consumers in compliance with the rule of law.

Forests are home for those indigenous peoples on both sides of the imposed unscientific supremacist binary (“non-human peoples as well as “human” peoples) who live there, from very small persons to very large persons. The print industry has since its modest beginnings in the 17th century developed into a very large global industry characterized by systematic waste of forests in the printing of newspapers as well as of unsolicited printed commercial brochures that are delivered on a mass scale to non-consenting consumers and which constitute the original paper version of spam mail. The emergence of the Internet means that it is now possible in principle to almost entirely supplant wasteful unethical printing with forest-friendly online media. Commercial clearfelling should thus be outlawed globally and printing should be restricted in the sense that print advertisement and print publishing should mostly be moved online. Most of the newspaper industry would likely be pleased to cooperate in this regard since publishing simultaneously in print and on the Internet tends to be considered as unprofitable. Certain indispensable printing practices such as some archival documentation, books for academic libraries, political leafleting and the printing of artistic lithography should however still be permitted under law.

Transferring movement periodicals to the Internet means that there will be new exciting communication opportunities for the Person Liberation Movement to interact with its members, activists and intellectuals in reinventing the Person Liberation Movement as a global literary, journalistic and artistic digital movement for universal emancipation. This is especially so considering that Internet journalism will no doubt become far more prestigious than at present if printing is mostly phased-out. Such general ethical phase-out of mass printing that is not limited to the Person Liberation Movement would also help free resources in the sense that the Person Liberation Movement would no longer need to use its scarce resources to pay for mass printing and mass postal distribution. However, phasing out most printing will have to be coupled with significantly strengthened legal protection of non-advertisement electronic communications generally and especially with regard to personally requested communications that for this or that reason is considered to be abhorrent.

There is a broader strategic aspect of this issue in the sense that the unscientific supremacist dichotomy prevents seeing and indeed recognizing that there are broader ethico-political issues at stake which would permit the Person Liberation Movement to befriend new strategic allies in these regards as in many others – across civil society. This is true with regard to indigenous peoples, both “non-human” and “human” who are threatened by mass logging whether “legal” or “illegal,” with regard to the phasing-out of most paper products in favor of electronic ones, as well as generally with regard to the intersection of marketing and ethics.

24. The Supermarket of Good and Evil

The global Person Liberation Movement tends to be reactive rather than proactive in virtually all political respects. Yet, for emancipatory movements to be politically credible, it is crucial to articulate ethical visions that are truly transformative and indeed inspiring for both opinion-makers and decision-makers. Here, it is vital not to rely on the society/environment dichotomy which is merely another mode of the unscientific human/non-human dichotomy and as such serves to prop up systemic supremacist evils that are so disastrous for people with emotions on both sides of the unscientific supremacist binary of the shared, thin layer of life around this planet.

Consumers are faced with a number of only partially ethical certification labels that are supposed to guide consumers in making ethical, rather than unethical consumer choices. These include labels for industrialized so called “organic agriculture”, for fair trade, for “environmental certification,” for consumer health, for sustainability practices, for “lacto-ovo vegetarian” evil products as well as for vegan products. The problem with most of these “certified” products is that they are usually “ethical” only with respect to one singular aspect (and occasionally two aspects) but certainly not with regard to all other important ethical aspects. Most agricultural crops are also semi-ethical, either due to varying degrees of systemic dependence on enslavement, parasitism and murder of persons denied personhood in organic agriculture with regard to fertilizers or due to unhelpful impact on internal and external space in chemical agriculture as produce of emerging veganic agriculture are not yet widely available to consumers. (Veganic is a portmanteau of vegan-organic.)

Evil products are those whose respective mode of production involves denying persons personhood with regard to at least some of those directly involved in so called “production.” Other unethical products do not deny persons personhood, but their modes of production are nevertheless ethically unacceptable in other respects. De-selection of evil products (including those derived from forced labor concentration camps in communist dictatorships) should no doubt generally have precedence over de-selection of other unethical products.

Purchase selection of (1) processed vegan products that are sensually indistinguishable to corresponding evil products in product segments where this is available as well as purchase selection of (2) processed vegan products that are under continuous product development towards becoming sensually indistinguishable to corresponding evil products – is no doubt a twin ethical imperative. While ethical vegan products are crucially characterized by ethical product concepts, actual production is usually ethically tainted by the use of crops from either organic or chemical agriculture as well as by use of crops from agriculture that has been established through recent universally genocidal deforestation in places such as the Amazonas and Borneo. While enslaved persons are generally treated in ways even more evil in chemical agriculture, organic agriculture is intrinsically (and on should add completely unnecessarily so) systemically dependent on using feces from enslaved persons who are still systemically behaved towards in ways extremely evil. A similar relative degree of extreme evil is true of biodynamic and traditional agriculture as well.

The first layer of criticism of this deplorable state of things of decidedly imperfect supermarket choices should no doubt be to ask why there is not one singular global ethics certification label that incorporates all ethical aspects that consumers face with regard to particular modes of production.

Yet such a universal ethics certification label, no matter how morally indispensable in the present, is an option that is external to ethics since this kind of amoral Hobbesian “consumer choice” leaves it to individual consumers to choose between ostensible “good and evil” as if that is a choice that ought to be left to consumers considering that such determination is ostensibly the raison d’être of governments and states.

The second layer of criticism would amount to question why it is legal to proactively market unethical products. While outlawing proactive marketing of unethical products for which sensually indistinguishable ethical product substitutes have not yet been fully developed, such a comprehensive ban is indeed morally required, yet this is also external to ethics.

The third layer of criticism amounts to the ethical imperative of phase-out of evil and unethical products generally; a political, economic and technological process that also has an important corresponding intellectual dimension in the sense of the never-ending ethical imperative for deconstructive phase-out of moral prejudice. Comprehensive transition to ethical products also crucially requires transition to ethical veganic agriculture that is serious about being optimally ethical in every respect.

An ethical economy should function in ways so that purchase choices are legally limited to products and services whose respective modes of production (as opposed to type of government) are ethically optimal. Developed economies should permanently lift all import tariffs for products and services produced abroad under certified ethically optimal conditions in every respect as this will serve to incentivize ethical practices everywhere, including crucially within dictatorships. A strategic transition is thus required away from the present consumer paradigm – where purchasers in effect have to choose between evil, bad and semi-ethical products – and rather move to a paradigm of ethical purchases where purchase opportunities are limited to a wide range of ethically optimal options.

A global program needs to be articulated based on complete transition to veganic agriculture combined with global reforestation of not only many present agricultural fields but also the greater part of the planet’s deserts in ways that will lead to much more frequent rainfall in at present arid territories by applying globally the most advanced Israeli desert reforestation techniques. A global coalition should be built towards this end which would be politically feasible as long as all participants are persuaded that they will not in any way need to alter their digestive habits (but rather the content and origin of their food) while taking very effective action towards ending global warming. This campaign coalition should be built with a combination of irrefutable statistics, ingenious ethical arguments and exclusive dinner invitations where select potential strategic interlocutors would be treated with exquisitely prepared evil-style vegan gourmet dinners.

However, finding strategic common ethical ground in between the Person Liberation Movement and other segments of global civil society does require explaining that ancient ecclesiastical moral prejudice in secular garb is unhelpful precisely as it is part and parcel of a superficially “secularized” anti-carnal, anti-body metaphysics. The Father of the Christian church of late Antiquity largely believed that the Church constituted the “new” so called Celestial Israel (in the sense as Israel of the soul) while the despised physical people of Israel remained the so called Carnal Israel (in the sense as Israel of the flesh) and since emancipation of Jews is the original foundational paradigm for all emancipation in Judeocentric Secular/Christian culture; such anti-carnal moral prejudice is also discursively foundational for the corresponding cyclical paradigmatic anti-body opposition to universal emancipation generally for those persons deemed far “too carnal”.

25.The Question of Law

An issue that has proven divisive in parts of the global Person Liberation Movement is that of law. Yet, few if any who have seriously considered this broader issue would dispute that breaking the law is not only justified, but indeed required under some circumstances.

First, there is the binary of democracies versus dictatorships which is systematically used to justify tyranny within democracies. Tyranny is not limited to dictatorships but is integral to all democracies as well. Certain tyranny is governmental, other tyranny is committed by private interests and often there is complicity in tyranny between governments and private interests. The democratic left tends to think that tyranny is mostly private while the democratic right tends to think that tyranny is mostly governmental, yet both tend to overwhelmingly ignore the exclusion of “non-human” persons from any notion of equality between persons generally as well as the complicity between state and corporations in committing the ongoing and the most extensive, indeed gargantuan mass of crimes ever committed in recorded history.

Prison is a form of torture and is for some reason considered acceptable despite the fact that nearly all recidivist criminals suffer from a highly hereditary diagnostic functional limitation usually known as psychopathy among legal adults and as ADHD among legal minors although there are few clinical afflictions which for some reason has so many alternative names. Being a psychopath tends to be painful in the sense that those afflicted tend to have a limited spectrum of very few emotions and tend to easily become extremely bored, which leads them to pursue adventurous lifestyles not only with regard to crime and substance abuse but also with regard to a sexually adventurous lifestyle and adventure in other regards such as e.g. climbing mountains.

Scholarly attempts to understand psychopaths do tend to demonize this category of persons rather than seeking means to cure them through gene therapy. Imagine if the hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally in recent decades on vengeful incarceration torment had been spent towards curing psychopathy by means of gene therapy. However, psychopaths fill an “indispensible” societal role in the sense that the very prejudicial Secular/Christian culture which prides itself on afflicting vengeful torment followed by subsequent penological absolution – can wrap itself in the mantle of “justice” and seem rational rather than indeed profoundly irrational. How are the officers of the court who deliver verdict and sentence pertaining to incarceration torture really different in ethical status from the ill persons whom they convict to extended torment? If these clerks of faith and court are indeed mere white-collar torturers, then is not their discursive framework of authorized state incarceration torture disguised as “justice” a mere anthropological curiosity, a macabre show of hypocrisy? The very refusal to constructively seek to understand and act rationally and ethically towards psychopaths with pathological behavior is indeed a form of anti-body prejudice.

So the proper ethical question is not if there are scenarios that have occurred historically where breaking the law is legitimate, as there has quite indisputably been such instances, but rather whether incarceration is ethically acceptable in any form or shape beyond brief detention following arrest. There is no question that incarceration torture as part of so called “justice” against suffering compulsive pathological psychopaths serves to implicitly – on the level of structure of discourse – indirectly justify incarceration and other forms of torture against “non-human” persons denied personhood. The strategic ethical venue towards universal emancipation should thus be based on opposing any prolonged incarceration generally while seeking constructive and helpful ways to deal with psychopathy and psychopaths through understanding cognitive diversity rather than through either clinical demonization or vengeful deliberate non-understanding as is the most common attitude in this regard in absolution-oriented Secular/Christian culture.

So when is it legitimate or even required to put oneself in a position of not abiding by certain anthropological taboos known as so called “law”? The ethical response is as brief as it is simple. A particular rule or law to the effect that it denies persons personhood should not merely be ignored but must not be abided by. If abiding by the law is ethically inadmissible when involving circumstances of denying personhood to persons who are recognized members of the Homo genus, then surely denying personhood to other persons outside of the Homo genus is equally inadmissible. Such discrimination against persons, founded on moral prejudice pertaining to membership in genetic groups is ethically inadmissible and is indeed external to ethics.

What about democracy then, are not laws legislated by elected parliamentarians more legitimate than those decreed by dictators? Liberal democracy is not a perfect form of government, yet where liberal democracy is possible it is certainly preferable to all other existing forms of government. The ethical prerogative is not to endorse liberal democracy in all circumstances (such as where it would lead to say Communist, Nazi or Islamist takeover) but rather as Leo Strauss admonishes us to seek the best regime possible in every particular jurisdictional intersection of time and space. This means that the current conception of liberal democracy is by far too ambitious in certain jurisdictions at certain times and in certain regards, yet terribly insufficient and monumentally ethically lacking in others.

Any legislation/regulation to the effect that it either denies or is complicit in denying persons personhood is a priori ethically inadmissible and indeed external to ethics. Something ethically inadmissible does not simply become ethically admissible simply for being mystically and publically “declared” so by certain morally megalomaniacal persons invested with powers of metaphysical revelation in the various branches of Secular/Christian government. The indisputable fact is that the mode of regime known as liberal democracy is seriously complicit in systemic mass evils and thus also seriously flawed in certain important regards, especially relating to its consistent sacralization of hegemonic racial supremacism over the past two centuries.

Transformative thought pertaining to liberal democracy must be intellectually responsible since so many critiques of liberal democracy have ended up in dictatorship. However, there is no question that what is known as liberal democracy needs to be updated and responsibly modified by means of responsible deconstruction in respects where it remains severely deficient such as where it tends to lead to either dictatorship, partial tyranny under representative government or to denying persons personhood. Denying persons personhood is intrinsically a form of tyranny, indeed the worst form of tyranny conceivable.

26. The Question of Violence

Incarceration and Master-Slave Morality have provided the predominant contemporary paradigm – in Secular/Christian racially supremacist culture generally and in the Person Liberation Movement specifically with regard to the relationship between on the one hand those who are legally recognized as persons and on the other those persons denied personhood. Yet, this is not especially helpful in understanding how legally free persons generally, across and on both sides of the supremacist binary interact socially in very diverse ways within and between taxa.

Both the legal and the underground wings of the Person Liberation Movement are opposed to what they refer to as “violence.” Even so, the economic setbacks caused by the underground wing are referred to as “violence” by Humanist racial supremacists and by many nominal non-supremacists who for some unstated reason believe that the tyranny of law of Humanist racial supremacists has always, always, always automatic precedence – no matter how unreasonable – over ethics with regard to the legal status of “non-human” persons denied personhood. What is interesting is that all three concerned main opinions – the (1) legal wing of the Person Liberation and (2) underground wing of the Person Liberation Movement as well as (3) supremacist corporate lobbies – are all three “opposed to violence generally.”

When various persons use the term “violence” they mean different things. There are many different forms, modes and degrees of “violence” and when opponents of “violence” in Secular/Christian culture oppose “all violence” they are in practice virtually never opposed to all forms of “violence.” Rather, this catch-all term is used to selectively condemn certain forms of “violence” but not all forms and thus in practice oppose only certain forms of “violence.” The underground Person Liberation Movement does not think that causing slave owners and torturers economic losses by harming their ill-gained “property” constitutes “violence” since they make sure not to physically harm persons and often even liberate incarcerated enslaved persons. The slave owners and torturers of industry and academia in turn do not think that their practices of torture and enslavement constitute “violence.” The mainstream Person Liberation Movement does similarly tend to not understand that politics itself constitutes intrinsic psychological and semiotic violence.

However, the problem here is that this overgeneralization called “violence” generates unconscious non-thinking whereby persons who say they oppose “all violence” are themselves not aware that that their ostensibly “general” opposition to so called “violence” generally is hypocritical, indeed highly selective and much narrower in scope than what they themselves presume. “Opposition to all violence” is a form of racial supremacism in the sense that it is really easy for legally recognized free persons of racially supremacist Humanist culture to oppose “all violence” when they themselves are not subjected to any substantial threat of what they understand as “violence” and certainly not any negation of their personhood as persons. The “false consciousness” of what is known as “pacifism” is indeed a form of idealizing Humanist supremacism which incidentally serves the very interests of dictators, slave owners, terrorists and torturers.

The Humanist/Nazi dichotomy presents a false choice in the sense that the moral choice is deliberately and falsely limited to two structurally extremely similar modes of anti-body racial supremacism and ideologically certified industrialized mass murder of persons denied personhood. To draw the line between ethical violence and unethical violence is essential and indeed imperative, but there are so many societies among so many different taxa across and on both sides of the supremacist binary who engage to some degrees in specific modes of so called “violence” that an initial preliminary investigation would need to first recognize – by paraphrasing Luce Irigaray – that these are quite diverse phenomena which indeed are not one.

27. The Trajectory of Salvation

There is a certain culturally Christian structure in the global Person Liberation Movement in the sense that secular salvation is supposedly reached by certain means that in Christianity are known as missionary activity. Veganism within the supremacist category is thus implicitly presented in so many words as a personal cross to be carried for salvation of everyone else. This is theoretically problematic since what matters structurally and strategically is increased demand in consumer markets for industrially processed vegan products that are either sensually indistinguishable from evil products or are increasingly being developed towards that goal. Greater demand for such ethical products presses down prices in this product segment and generally makes it easier to go vegan.

Selling veganism should focus on structural change in the sense as targeting leaders of various kinds throughout much of the spectrum of supremacist society by inviting them to enjoy deliciously and professionally prepared evil-style vegan gourmet dinners in warm and welcoming settings. While such dinners are by no means inexpensive, doing this on a regular scale will press down costs per dinner as established major Person Liberation Movement organizations should use the best vegan chefs available. It is of course extremely important to find out about the personal food preferences of a strategic guest simultaneously as the invitation is personally issued.

Females in certain societies have for generations been prejudicially taught that the best way to reach a male’s heart runs through his stomach, yet there may just be some truth to this theory. While leaders and decision-makers indeed tend be predominantly male in most jurisdictions, there is no question that emotional experiences such as consuming vegan gourmet food that is sensually indistinguishable from evil meals do make certain people – male and female – listen, who would otherwise not had been so attentive since listening attentively to each other is what hosts and guests are mutually obliged to do by custom in many Human societies. This does not mean that dinners should transform into veritable lobbying events but rather that such dinner experiences open up subsequent political venues and contacts for movement lobbyists, political opportunities which in many cases otherwise would not be available.

The great thing is that professional movement lobbyists need not know the leader in question before the dinner as any movement grassroot with a personal connection of some kind to a potentially interesting strategic leader could personally issue such dinner invitation subsequent to approval from the dinner organizers. Person Liberation Movement grassroots can thus play an indispensable role by connecting Person Liberation Movement professional lobbyists with strategically placed important leaders of various kinds throughout Human society.

Movement dinner participants, which would mostly consist of volunteers from the Person Liberation Movement, as well as one or two of the movement’s own professional lobbyists, must all be exceedingly polite (and should indeed be trained to behave so) as their task should be to make the guest or even a group of guests from the same organization to feel perfectly at home. The activist invitees should specifically be selected in each case so as to match the personality/background of a particular strategic guest in various personal respects. Being exceedingly nice and letting external strategic leaders have a great gastronomic vegan experience will go a long way towards making strategic leaders intellectually open towards and indeed accepting of the strategic necessity of comprehensive government buy-out of evil production as coupled with comprehensive phase-out of unethical production generally. Indeed, the more prejudice there is in strategic dinner guests towards tasty vegan food, the greater the pleasant sensual surprise to the effect that this prejudice against vegan food generally is indeed incorrect.

The Secular/Christian structure according to which salvation is achieved by individual “conversion” is problematic indeed since this line of thinking essentially assumes that paradigm shift will only happen through individual “conversion” rather than also through collective shift of paradigm. It is not necessary to wait for universal emancipation until all voting primates have been “converted” so to speak, but rather what is strategically needed is gaining consent from leaders across civil society for change that will not sensually alter the experience their own consumption habits. Many leaders will provide near default consent once they understand both emotionally and intellectually that they will not need to change their own digestive habits but only the ingredients, while other leaders will need to be economically incentivized by making sure that they will one way or another gain from this process such as through governmental buy-out of “production” of evil products at a price representing twice the market value of each concentration camp or by understanding how to gain economically from the phase-out in the sense of market potential and yet others could be made to benefit from political synergies of various kinds through coalition building with the Person Liberation Movement and its other future allies.

While the “conversion paradigm” has its obvious practical limitations, a limited effectiveness as well as obvious turn-offs as has all Secular/Christian missionary activity – what is needed is genealogical understanding of the anatomy of shift of paradigm. A shift of paradigm in this crucial regard has both moral economic/technological aspects and ethical intellectual/critical aspects. The Person Liberation Movement and most other political movements in Secular/Christian society such as Marxism and Libertarianism all constitute genealogical variations on the theme of the medieval Christian ideology later known as “Liberalism.” While the left and the right all claim to be ostensible intrinsic “opposites” of each other, they are virtually all founded on very similar modes of Hellenist/Christian/Secular metaphysics such as idealizing Humanist supremacism. Shift of paradigm thus requires thinking beyond this apparatus of systemic anti-body prejudice.

Activists and intellectuals in the Person Liberation Movement are generally aware that an emancipatory shift of paradigm will require others to substantially change their Weltanschauung, but they are much less aware and prepared for that they will need to substantially change their own Weltanschauung as well. The Person Liberation Movement should endeavor to undergo this process itself and thus lead the way for everyone else in the “human” so called “general public”. Educational efforts towards a very different paradigm of universal emancipation thus require educating not only movement grassroots and movement employees but also leaders, decision-makers and opinion-makers of various kinds throughout much of “human” society. Indeed, the missionary-style approach implicitly assumes that intellectual change is only necessary in others and not among ourselves, the already “convinced” activists and intellectuals of the Person Liberation Movement and this quite faulty conception is distinctly unhelpful in not articulating transformative visions of the political anatomy of the universal emancipation to come.

28. The Question of Ethical Articulation

The question of articulation is one that has both proven divisive between different political denominations of the Person Liberation Movement as well as in internal debates. On the one hand there are dogmatic pragmatists who are willing to say almost anything to score a tactical victory while treating strategic victory as a mere messianic propensity for a distant future. On the other hand, there are the dogmatic anti-pragmatists who mimic idealizing Humanist supremacist political correctness in ostensibly remaining fully idiomatically “innocent.” Within the Person Liberation Movement, dogmatic pragmatists tend to be almost solely concerned with tactics while dogmatic anti-pragmatists tend to be almost solely concerned with strategy.

While national elections usually require confessing fealty to a political denomination and its pastoral officers, it is also frequently assumed among intellectuals in the Person Liberation Movement that choosing “the right” philosophical denomination constitutes a proper act of eschatology based on the implicit belief and indeed intrinsic fallacy that one partisan philosophical denomination must be true because the others are false. Yet, superficial idiomatic innocence is hardly a laudable propensity in the sense of not being capable to effectively communicate on more than one level at a time. This is highly problematic as effective political communication usually must function well simultaneously on both conscious and subconscious levels.

The dogmatic anti-pragmatist desire for pre-fall exoteric superficial textual innocence presents a formidable strategic political obstacle in the sense as refusing to communicate esoterically as well. Dogmatic pragmatists err in the sense of being systemically content with mere tactical “victories” which of course is a recipe for over-all self-defeat in war as well as in politics. The internal discursive dichotomy between pragmatists and anti-pragmatist within the Person Liberation Movement is unhelpful in the sense that both camps tend to ignore the basic military insight that effective tactics are those that are deployed as part of effective overall strategies. The current dichotomous tactics/strategy division between philosophical denominations associated with the Person Liberation Movement masks what tends to be a shared relative incapacity to integrate strategy and tactics in comprehensive ways that are simultaneously ethical, effective and professional.

Writing primarily esoterically may very well be morally justified considering a writer’s political, economic and academic surrounding in the sense that scholars are dependent for their living and careers on various academic bodies that provide salaries and research funding. Default esotericism may however constitute quite unnecessary self-defeat in the sense of giving up on finding effective means to communicate certain urgent indispensable truths to the reading public generally. The Person Liberation Movement thus needs to find ways to bridge this chasm through establishment of result-oriented, multi-cultural think tanks composed of intellectually curious Animalist thinkers, loci that would provide the very kind of intellectual space that would permit criticism of moral prejudice of every kind while not giving up on finding ways to publically and effectively communicate indispensible truths that are certainly inconvenient and precisely so in the absence of specific emancipation. Indeed, emancipation invariably occurs through successful articulation that runs counter to present anti-body taboos. This does not mean that each and every way of telling truths is advisable, but rather that the appropriate articulation needs to be invented if not yet available. However, it must be kept in mind that the multi-cultural dimension is particularly important in enabling strategic unmasking of moral prejudice generally.

While enlightened esoteric Animalist philosophers (writing in the respective esoteric traditions of Friedrich Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, Jacques Derrida and so on) do recognize that the present unscientific supremacist category is indeed taxonomically constituted solely by persons who themselves are Animals; most have little if anything politically practical to say with regard to how to counter the non-civic status of persons denied personhood despite Derrida’s consistent theoretical focus on various “non-human” persons. This is usually not out of malice or prejudice among enlightened Animalist thinkers but rather usually due to mere lack of imagination in this regard. It is indeed peculiar how successful Derrida was in intellectually stimulating other scholars to break free of intellectual prejudice generally, yet how he despite life-long academic efforts failed to stimulate most of these scholars with respect to his intellectual ethical core mission pertaining generally to persons denied emancipation.

There is a kind of public piety of political correctness in ostensibly emancipatory discourse (but actually retroactively so) in the sense that fealty is humbly declared towards a privileged list of sin-free, anti-body life categories which simultaneously constitutes enumeration of historical acts of emancipation. These varying exclusive lists of ostensibly non-carnal life categories that have at least somewhere successfully achieved some measure of emancipation, tells much more about those excluded than those included in the so often repeated rant as if it was some kind of spell of anti-carnal absolution. The Person Liberation Movement thus also needs to fashion intellectual space that allows more than one truth at the time. E.g. the particular discursive practices known as so called “animal welfare” may have been simultaneously extremely historically helpful and at the same time extremely strategically counterproductive. It may not necessarily be yes or no, but rather yes and no. There is a distinct need for intellectual space that would allow expression of such non-doctrinal nuance with regard to past, present and future.

This could be done through establishment of public, collaborative Wiki-Talmuds consisting of commentaries to the entire textual corpus of esoteric Animal philosophy. The Internet format of the Wiki-Talmuds should not be focused on immediately establishing a single truth, but rather to systematically document and make available different possible interpretations to be presented side by side on the same electronic daf, meaning one graphically complex composite Talmudic page. What characterizes the Talmudic daf is precisely that it is inhabited by so many different thinkers and so many different viewpoints and that discussion also occurs even between generations. Indeed the Talmudic daf is even bi-idiomatic in the sense that certain historical layers of text are written in Hebrew while other historical layers of text are written in Aramaic.

Wiki-Talmuds pertaining to the entire published historical corpus of esoteric Animal philosophy, would help bring esoteric Animal philosophy to a broader audience, including crucially to political/intellectual elites while permitting present Animal philosophers of academia to continue to maintain a philosophical veil of plausible deniability when so need be. Animalist thinkers generally and the Person Liberation Movement do indeed need to be brought together for significantly improved strategic performance towards comprehensive change of paradigm leading to universal emancipation. Animalist thinkers generally of academia and beyond and the Person Liberation Movement could indeed be mutually strategically helpful in this and other respects as Wiki-Talmuds would crucially make esoteric Animal philosopohy freely available and indeed intelligible to the wider reading public generally.

29. The Façade of Evil

The slave circus is a key discursive locus where the question of Humanist racial supremacism is both functionally highly visualized and at the same time made morally invisible. The slave circus provides a functionally similar role to that which did the Theresienstadt concentration camp for the Shoah in discursively trivializing and visually sanitizing practices of industrialized mass evil. The slave circus is symptomatic of a broader discursive predicament where someone’s distinctly non-pleasant pain is someone else’s pleasure. Slave performance provides a locus where the sufferings of enslavement are aesthetically hidden and where paying circus participants delude themselves through systemic mislineation of abuse into believing that they somehow engage in mutual pleasure. Yet, this performance of enslavement hides a certain pervasive structure of representation of enslaved persons.

Israelis have learned the hard way that many Europeans sympathize with dead Jews but certainly much less so with living Jews. This chaste European necrophilia that hides the still pervasive Anti-Jewish aversions in both Muslim and Christian so called “civilizations,” has reinforced the entire Secular/Christian edifice of Master-Slave Morality and Europeans have for decades been giving Israel truly bad advice leading once more towards the so beloved-desired status of dead victims.

There is a similar structure of chaste necrophilia in European culture with regard to persons at present denied personhood. The legal sub-persons are loved on the plate and chastely pornographically enjoyed through industry marketing presenting a false picture of the lives of suffering, enslaved, industrially incarcerated persons as “happy cows” and so on. Despite the flattering supremacist self-image, Secular/Christian culture is one of cultic vampirism-cannibalism that is secularized into demonic love of death. Death is eroticized in Secular/Christian space which unlike most other so called “human” cultures does not believe that death is part of life, but rather external to life. The Holy Communion of symbolic vampirism-cannibalism (of the blood and the flesh of the ostensibly “non-human” Jewsus) has been structurally secularized into a living hell of industrialized parasitism and industrially engendered satanic cannibalism against fellow sentient persons. While of European cultural origin, this global structure of industrialized mass evil has come to encompass all “human” jurisdictions far beyond Christendom.

Secular space is obsessed with engaging in death-inducing pleasure – both relating to slow consumer suicide as well as in relation to other persons – as Christian sins are cultically celebrated by the Secular culture of death-inducing pleasure and the systemic industrialized sacrifice of the absolute other. What else is this if not evil, indeed a cult[ure] of evil? The veneer of universalism permits the normalization of industrialized satanic evil under the guise of so called “secularism” which in turn is premised on the mostly unfounded ideology/religion dichotomy as if evil becomes good merely on account of being declared universal.

However, this façade of evil known as “circus” needs to be better theoretically understood. Which psychological mechanisms are at work in that tent of abuse; the music, the laughter, the clapping of hands and the celebration of choreographies of cruel forced labor? What is this systemic love of victimhood and death, if not outright evil, and indeed what else is it? Yet, the enslaved persons of these evil choreographies are indeed empathized with in a “positive” sense as living pseudo-pornographic teddy bears so to speak, rather than in a “negative” sense as victims of evil supremacism. Indeed, they are loved precisely as they are victimized in this satanic structure of celebration. Yet, it is interesting how the slave circus provides a distinct locus of evil love, a trope that is formally unthinkable in normative Secular culture and indeed projected elsewhere. This is maintained through a dichotomous pattern of representation of persons denied personhood who are either idealized and chastely eroticized as “cuties” or represented as mere suffering abjects. What is thus required is strategic artistic representation which focuses on recognizing and bringing back the personal dignity of constituent individual personhood of persons of blood and flesh generally. Indeed, pleasure certainly need not be evil, yet the systemic secular celebration of Christian sins needs to be commercially supplanted by other pleasure that are not founded on the evil love of secular religious imperialism.

Yet, most so called “owners” of ill gained slave circuses and slave parks would certainly be cooperative in abolishing this enslavement provided that they would be provided with sufficiently generous government compensation as part of a comprehensive legal end to this enslavement. The existence of commercially viable slave-free circuses indicates that circuses would indeed have a future after slavery is legally abolished.

30. Understanding False Confidence

The notion of so called “vegetarianism” is a particularly strange one with its specific and indeed peculiar genealogical origins. How is it really that a commercial consumer who chooses to eat ova and dairy “products” but not carnal “products” for some unexplained reason may style herself “vegetarian” and even pompously as “ovo-lacto vegetarian,” while another commercial consumer who chooses to eat carnal “products” but not ova and dairy “products,” is generally not socially permitted to call herself “vegetarian” or even more specifically as “carno-vegetarian”?

While there are historical reasons for this peculiar discursive practice, it is certainly problematic in the sense of constituting a particular kind of “false consciousness,” meaning that it is generally considered more morally legitimate for a commercial consumer to choose to eat certain evil products as opposed to other no less evil products. Of course, there is generally speaking no moral basis for this assertion, yet this is usually left unchallenged in the Person Liberation Movement. In contrast, to eat enslaved fellow members of supremacist society is of course cannibalism and to eat their bodily emissions is to constitute a certain kind of collectively “participatory” parasitical vampire.

Contemporary morality of supremacist political correctness instructs its subjects to respect cultures of the supremacist taxon. Indeed, this usually distinctly Anti-European Eurocentric exercise in supremacist taxonomic confession – even by non-European proxy – is limited to members of the self-declared “superior” Humanist race, i.e. to the present ostensibly superior, “human” ostensible subspecies. The Human taxonomy has never been scientific; indeed Linnaeus (as Agamben notes) was incapable of providing scientific evidence for this particular ostensibly taxonomic classification. The ostensibly superior Humanist race is thus a certain figment of imagination of the clerical mind of Secular/Christian culture or in the terminology of Soviet politicized scientific jargon, a certain kind of supremacist “social construction.”

At the basis of this social construction of idealizing Humanist supremacism is the secular assertion that the supremacist, Humanist ostensibly “superior” subspecies is taxonomically morally superior to all other people with emotions. The pre-secular Christian view of the ostensibly superior life category was ontologically more realistic in the sense that the working assumption was rather that the “human” family had become intrinsically tainted with evil after the so called “Fall of Man.” Indeed, the notion of “humans” as evil beings does certainly have merit in many ways, yet even so, there are certainly ways to change this through both legal and genetic change. Most commercial consumers who decide to become vegans usually have a long record of “consumption” of evil products and collaboration in many ways with the contemporary religion of Secular Fascism that includes industrialized cannibalism, industrial vampirism and official scientific torture. There is in other words in most cases a significant catalogue of participation in communal sins of the most evil kind imaginable.

The Humanist individual-collective self-image of being fundamentally “good” is not only problematic because it is intrinsically false, but also because it serves to mask and legitimize participation of citizens in collective practices of intrinsic mass evil. Contemporary supremacist society thus systematically instructs its members to cultivate a “positive” so called “self-confidence” even when this is completely unrelated to actual conditions. There is certainly something rotten in temple of secularism as it has made categorical supremacism far more evil than before the culturally European Enlightenment. The notion of an ostensibly already completed Enlightenment is highly problematic in the sense that Enlightenment is deemed to be part of the past when this would just as much have to be an indispensable innovative part of any ethical future. Enlightenment is mere work in progress and as Derrida points out, there certainly needs to be a second Enlightenment and especially so since the first Enlightenment was so extremely, extremely morally insufficient. Hell is now and the supremacist cannibals-vampires-torturers are the devils of that particular evil hell of tragically ongoing history.

The second Enlightenment needs to be welcomed, not merely in the future, but crucially in the very present. The Person Liberation Movement needs to ready itself for the distinct possibility that universal emancipation needs no longer be deferred for say one or two centuries, but rather that non-resolution of political problems that pose strategic or tactical obstacles to the Person Liberation Movement in its quest for universal emancipation is simply not acceptable. The petrified confidence in the contemporaneous and its mythical limits is indeed very much unfounded and indeed unwarranted.

31. The Supremacist Structure

While the Person Liberation Movement is nominally Animalist in the sense of acknowledging that Humans are Animals – its official populist rhetoric is hardly so as it constantly refers to “we”, meaning the unscientific supremacist taxon and implicitly “they”, meaning every other person with emotions. The not-so-difficult and indeed immediate ethico-political imperative is thus to abandon the unscientific terminology of supremacist populism, they and us in favor of we and us. Of course, not every “we/they” distinction is racially supremacist, but this certainly is.

Saying we Animals with a capitalized “A” in English is really easier than perpetuating a further re-inscription of the prejudicial terminology of racial supremacist polarization. Voters need to be made aware that anti-body prejudice is quite contagious and that one form of anti-body oppression can easily morph into another as did indeed happen in the case of the Shoah which developed out of the already existing industry of mass enslavement, mass torture and mass murder of non-Human persons. The paradigmatic crossing of this discursive Rubicon will thus no doubt require some soul-searching within the Person Liberation Movement, yet making the transition from populist supremacism to Animalist identity politics is absolutely indispensable and indeed absolutely unavoidable. Indeed, the Person Liberation Movement tends to underestimate the level of civic identification that so many citizens hold with respect to persons denied personhood. Many citizens also identify with “non-human” family members of theirs in an inclusive plural sense. English capitalization will also serve to underscore that Animalists are politically serious and that Animals generally – in the inclusive sense of including supremacists themselves – constitute a broader community of persons, worthy of respect as constituted by the very intrinsic personhood of everyone who experiences emotions.

Indeed, we Animals and we Animalists need to take the path of inclusive terminology that does not structurally exclude the very persons whom we Animalists seek to emancipate and who must indeed be legally included in universal personhood. Most educated citizens know that they are indeed Animals as the hegemonic idealizing Humanist supremacism is largely maintained by politically correct supremacist elites. Indeed, one common strategic error inside the Person Liberation Movement is to assume that citizens generally are as politically correct as supremacist elites. Another key strategic error is the assumption that political correctness is somehow a strategic ally of the Person Liberation Movement. Indeed, what is known as political correctness is merely one of the more recent versions of hegemonic idealizing Humanist racial supremacism. Critical theorists tend to be quite well aware of how emancipatory discourse recycles supremacist discursive structures in ways that perpetuate racial supremacism, yet there tends to be little awareness of this strategic predicament within the Person Liberation Movement whose intellectuals tend to be interested in philosophy rather than in critical theory. Yet, philosophy certainly needs not be pursued to the exclusion of critical theory as is illustrated in the convergence between continental philosophy and critical theory in the works of esoteric Animalist thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Donna Haraway and Giorgio Agamben.

It is really not that difficult to start to write and indeed say “we Animals are all persons with emotions worthy of legally recognized personhood and civic equality.” Yet, this is an indispensible transition if we -in the sense of Animalists- are serious about an absolutely indispensible Second Enlightenment of universal emancipation. Indeed, inclusive terminology will very much facilitate ethical, transformative and innovative articulation. The supremacist terminology of “they and us” is after all perpetuating the paradigmatic polarized prejudice of the present, while “we and us” opens up to creative transformative articulation – crucially including but not limited to – what we Animals share as persons. Indeed, the life differences among so many emotional life categories and their constituent persons – is part of what we share as a broader community of Animals as these shared life differences are not reducible to any single vastly exaggerated, polarized metaphysical-superstitious bisection of any kind.

The idiomatics of Animalist identity politics will rather be tremendously empowering in the sense of making it possible to say what supremacism does not permit to be told. The idiomatics of Animalism will thus also crucially facilitate effective, ethical, political expression rather than perpetually lingering on the wrong side of the Rubicon of discursive emancipation. Once the supremacist “they” is supplanted with an inclusive, affirmative “we”, then the-gap-of-ideal-versus-reality that the Person Liberation Movement faces in its day-to-day politics can begin to be strategically bridged by the use of emancipatory terminology that is inclusive of those who themselves are afflicted with supremacist prejudice. After all, why should the Person Liberation Movement help perpetuate the very unscientific structure of supremacist discourse? Indeed, intellectuals and activists of the Person Liberation Movement do politically exclude and marginalize both themselves and persons denied personhood by quite unnecessarily clinging to the polarizing anti-body paradigm of supremacist life dichotomies. Indeed, every historically successful emancipatory movement has historically confronted and transcended such a vastly exaggerated supremacist life dichotomy. The respective strategic move beyond an oppressive and exaggerated supremacist life dichotomy did in fact constitute an absolutely indispensable element of their respective historical public political success. It was true then and it is true now in the present and it is certainly true for the political future of universal emancipation.

32. Understanding Prejudice of the Present

The contemporary Person Liberation Movement is intrinsically founded on discursive practices distinctly rooted in implicit belief in the hegemonic metaphysics of the present, based in this regard on both traditional philosophy and traditional public relations. Philosophy is traditionally a conservatory practice in the sense that its mission is to justify present practices, including sometimes actually or allegedly oppositional ones such as political veganism and “welfare” for enslaved persons denied personhood. The practice of public relations is premised on the idea that leaders who exercise influence over public discourse to some degree or another need to explain the present in terms of mass exoteric communication with the so called “general public.”

The stereotypical political genre pertaining to rhetorical style and choice of words of the Person Liberation Movement is that of tears without tears in the sense that the Person Liberation Movement argument usually goes to point out that “non-human” persons suffer on a horrendous scale and are therefore eligible for that 12th century Catholic Canonist invention of generic supremacist privileges or natural rights. Little thought is devoted to the distinct possibility that it is precisely this utilitarian discourse of idealizing Humanist supremacist racial privileges that underpins contemporary industrialized mass evils. The contemporary construction of the supremacist taxon is zoologically officially defined as a subspecies, not a species and its supremacist taxonomic privileges are therefore discursively and intrinsically race-based, not species-based.

Public relations are not merely applied tactical discursive techniques for public communication as public relations also constitute a certain ideology of the contemporary that serves to reinforce the supremacist metaphysical mythology of the present. This is highly problematic as it is the hegemonic paradigm of the metaphysics of the present, including within both philosophy and public relations, which do structurally prevent a transition to a very different paradigm of a Second Enlightenment, not based on further perpetuation of epistemological privileging of the present (i.e. ontology) over the future. Derrida believed that for the Person Liberation Movement to succeed politically, it was necessary to first structurally expose the unfounded vacuousness of the metaphysics of the present that indeed predominate throughout supremacist Secular/Christian culture. In contrast, metaphysical presence-present is rather a mere metaphor for the very cognition of universal sentience that navigates between the shores of the past and the shores of the future – between memory and expectation – as cognition of universal sentience is by no means exclusive to any one type or kind of official supremacist life category.

The ideology of public relations inside the Person Liberation Movement is thus a certain contemporary mode of metaphysically conservatory idealizing Humanist supremacism masquerading as “pragmatism” and “cynicism.” Indeed, the very ideology of public relations in the Person Liberation Movement presents itself as a panacea for the contemporary non-status of persons denied personhood and if traditional public relations cannot do it, the general assumption goes, then it is concluded by default that neither can anyone else in that seemingly never-ending present which is the ongoing evil historical mass hell that is commercially imposed on persons denied personhood. Yet, this ignores that while both traditional philosophy and traditional public relations are concerned with justifying contemporary discursive practices – critical theory is in contrast opposed to the present and devoted to studying the discursive practices that underlie the structured oppression known as the present. It is not merely that the present is inhabited by systemic moral prejudice, but rather that the contemporary notion of the present constitutes a certain paradigmatic, hegemonic and oppressive structure in discourse as if the contemporary does not in fact constitute a quite very recent past!

It is thus not sufficient to merely question certain present commercial mass practices but indeed to call into question the very paradigmatic, hegemonic and supremacist construction of “the present” i.e. idealizing Humanist supremacism. A Second Enlightenment does not merely require judicial universal emancipation for everyone with emotions, but does indeed ultimately demand public exoteric deconstruction of the very political metaphysics of the present in public political discourse generally.

One basic insight in critical theory is the now foundational understanding that political opponents of oppression tend to be themselves severely discursively-structurally implicated in the very oppression to which they are nominally opposed. Indeed, critical theory is as concerned with the structures of complicity of opponents of structural oppression as it is of structural oppression itself. Making the ethico-politically crucial discursive transition from the moral prejudice of the present-past of the mostly unfounded dichotomy of ideology/religion towards future-oriented ethics of universal emancipation, is quite essential for inducing and indeed achieving a shift of paradigm in terms of the public founding of a discursivity of a Second Enlightenment to the crucial inclusion of universal emancipation.

The gargantuan suffering on this planet that is deliberately induced on a mass scale and indeed directly and indirectly inflicted by official members of the evil supremacist taxon of the day, against each other and against persons denied personhood, seems overwhelming to most informed citizens and merely pointing out this predicament and subsequently opposing it – with communication techniques appropriated from corporate antagonists – is far from sufficiently ethico-politically effective. It is also true that most of this suffering is ethically unfounded and could in principle be easily avoided. It is not sufficient to merely politically and rhetorically oppose specific kinds of universal suffering as the very discursive structures on which industrialized mass evils are premised must be exposed in order to be politically undone rather than mere simplistically bypassed or ignored by stereotypical deployment of “secular” Master-Slave Morality of “we supremacists” and “those poor others” of that familiar populist and rhetorical, yet unfounded and unscientific, patronizing supremacist life dichotomy between judicially recognized personhood and judicially non-recognized personhood.

The essential task for intellectuals of the Person Liberation Movement is thus not merely to simplistically instruct other members of the movement in “how to think” but to truly inspire and transform them cognitively to think for themselves, such as e.g. by making it necessary for quite a few interested readers to carefully read this essay more one than once for the distinct benefit of improved understanding as oppressive paradigmatic hegemonic discourse changes indeed with changes in public thinking. Hence, intellectual change starts at home.

33. The Second Veil of Prejudice

While questioning actual prejudice is important and necessary, few if any have ventured to also question that distinctly something that is hidden by the very “veil of prejudice.” What is there after all behind the veil of prejudice?

The answer is simply put, more prejudice. Not only is prejudice itself prejudicial but so is that which it hides, namely the fictional standardized group persona of idealizing Humanist supremacism. The question that needs to be posed is therefore on what specific grounds prejudice is rejected and condemned. In Secular/Christian society where marketing and self-promotion has become the societal norm, actual/ostensible prejudice is rejected specifically on account of violating the sacred consensus of political correctness. Politics in many Secular/Christian liberal democracies is thus increasingly limited to budgetary debates, since most other issues are already pre-determined by the sacred consensus.

Yet, this fictional persona is strange as virtually every citizen is structurally excluded in one way or another from that ostensibly so inclusive idealizing Humanist supremacism. Virtually no one fits the unscientific, imperialist idealization of the day and most exposed to it are thus structurally oppressed by default. “Non-human” persons are oppressed because they do not fit the idealization and so are females, humans belonging to other taxa than indigenous Europeans, stigmatized minorities of sexual practice and so on. The first veil of prejudice thus hides a second veil of idealization. Beyond the two veils is universal personhood which of course is not one, but indeed innumerable singular ones. Personhood is exceedingly cognitively diverse and hence the ultimately irreducible singularity of each person. Any scheme of classification of life categories is ultimately insufficient and unsatisfactory since most life categories are indeed intrinsically based on multiple, ultimately unfounded generalizations. Yet, certain life categories are more unscientific than others, including the contemporary form of hegemonic, imperialist racism-enslavement based on the unscientific and supremacist racial taxon of the so called Homo sapiens sapiens and its supremacist racial privileges from which sub-persons are structurally excluded, whether these persons are Jews/Israelis, taxonomic “non-humans” or otherwise.

Victims of prejudice are not merely subject to representational distortion, but the very condemnation of prejudice tends to serve to disguise the equally distorted, projected, idealized self-image on which the prejudice of idealizing Humanist supremacism invariably is founded and towards which systemic prejudice tends to be counter-posed to. While the first veil is based on negative overgeneralization, the second veil is based on a “positive” overgeneralization that is no less unfounded, harmful and prejudicial. Countering prejudice with structural idealization is thus not merely insufficient as prejudice and its two veils must be deconstructed indeed.

It is simple and attractive for any defamed group and/or its defenders to resort to visual/textual idealization since idealization is the basis of determination of prejudice as one veil is readily fitted onto the other. The cases of Islamism and Kahanism provide interesting examples since both streams tend to celebrate vengeance as a religious imperative. Yet, the Secular/Christian world has traditionally assumed that both Jews and Muslims are driven by a simplistic desire for mere “revenge.” So which versions of Islam and Judaism respectively constitute the true appropriate generalized representation, those of the pro-vengeance movements or those of their Muslim and Jewish critics? To claim that Islamism and Kahanism are mere distortions of Islam and Judaism is to engage in undue metaphysical idealization based on “pre-fall” distinctions, considering what happens when the deviating, so called “extremist” model of representation become the practiced norm as has happened with increasing Islamist domination among Orthoprax Muslims in many jurisdictions around the world. The essential ethico-political imperative to critique structural prejudice in discourse (the first veil) can therefore not be divorced from the indispensable critique of unfounded idealization (the second veil.) It is thus ethically and strategically usually preferable to respond to defamation by providing a mixed, more realistic, fair picture and representation, rather than one based on mere idealization of innocence derived from the metaphysics of religious imperialism whether “faith-based” or “secular.”

The contemporary, oppressive idealization of innocence usually takes the form of unscientific negation of carnal/cognitive diversity, whether as rejection of stigmatized minorities of sexual practice, denial of considerable cognitive diversity within the imperialist, supremacist taxon of the day or Christian/Nazi/Humanist rejection of intrinsic personhood of persons for being far “too carnal.” It is not only Jews who for centuries have been deemed too carnal, but this rhetoric is applied generally to taxa of persons classified as being external to the supremacist life category of the day and this anti-carnal ideology did indeed underpin historical New World plantation enslavement. While the limit is usually moved so as to seek to enlarge the supremacist life category, this does not resolve the issue of unfounded idealization on which the essentially superficial moving of that limit – or seemingly endlessly deferred supremacism – is indeed premised.

To e.g. claim that Jews cannot have democracy on their own due to ostensibly being “too carnal”, while Muslims cannot have democracy on their own, on account of being “too spiritual”, constitutes paradoxically both direct contradiction of and indirect reinforcement of the structure of normative supremacist idealization of innocence. This is so because the nominal contradiction does not contradict the discursive structure of racial supremacist idealization per se but rather, merely defers the envelope of its outer limits. The relevant ethico-political imperative is thus not merely to criticize expressions of prejudice, but also crucially to deconstruct the iterative discursive structures of prejudice generally across categorical divides.

The Person Liberation Movement has long assumed that it is sufficient to merely “say no” to oppression by means of protests combined with the latest public relations tricks, which may not be so “smart” after all unless the iterative discursive structures of prejudice are exposed and unraveled by means of attentive deconstruction. Indeed, the Person Liberation Movement tends to recognize anti-body oppression against “non-human” persons, but not the manifold and quite diverse and heterogeneous existence of discursive structures of prejudice that underlie cross-categorical anti-body oppression generally (physionism) in its many different forms. Undoing this structural prejudice thus requires engaging with and indeed challenging critical theory generally. While the Person Liberation Movement and its intellectuals need to engage substantially with critical theory, this should not be an uncritical embrace but should rather question the very premises of critical theory itself and its supremacist past-present. Engagement with critical theory is necessary precisely as critical theory is fashioned by normative supremacist society. Engagement with critical theory on the part of the Person Liberation Movement and its intellectuals should not be misconstrued as accepting an updated sacred consensus of political correctness but rather changing critical theory by rejecting its historically inherited structural prejudice.

34. Rethinking Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism as a government policy has in recent times been declared dead and failed by prominent European conservative leaders such as Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy. However, assimilatory policies are unlikely to succeed in the specific contexts where multiculturalism failed in so many European countries considering that both paradigms are premised on negation of the societal value of domestic genetic diversity. Yet, political advocates of present multiculturalism tend to believe that their political doctrine is the only alternative to a European relapse into Fascism, an ideology which incidentally is also structurally premised on negation of the value of domestic genetic diversity. In short, all three paradigms are exhibits of anti-body ideologies, i.e. physionism.

Yet, there is something ethically significant in the very idea that persons who are quite substantially different from each other may yet live together in quite considerable, yet not wholly unlimited tolerance. The fundamental problem with multiculturalism is that while it embraces cultural diversity, it shies away from similarly embracing genetic diversity as well which thus indirectly completely excludes “non-human” persons and ”non-human” cultures from the political equation. It is surely not easy for politically responsible citizens to embrace carnal differences that have been so consistently maligned and structurally opposed, persecuted, exterminated, negated and denied by world ideologies that each offer a panacea founded in metaphysical opposition to carnal diversity. Yet, these world ideologies do not differ substantially from each other in terms of policies towards those persons who do not fit the fictional matrix of hegemonic, universalized, supremacist idealization of the day.

The social construction of the seemingly ever-changing supremacist life category is one that has never been scientific as even Linnaeus, as Agamben points out, was incapable of providing scientific evidence for the ascribed taxonomic status of the so called “Homo sapiens” taxon. There is a distinct double standard at work in taxonomic classification of life categories whereby genetic differentiation specifically engendered by so called “humans” are considered to be somehow external to regular classification of taxonomic life categories as if supremacists and their various enforced breeding activities are somehow inherently external to what is simplistically understood as evolution.

Were otherwise established standards of zoological taxonomic classification to be applied to the immense, yet so opposed human carnal diversity, both cognitive and somatic, then it would be crystal clear that there is no such thing as one singular living human species or one singular living human subspecies, but rather that there are not only multiple living human subspecies, but also multiple living human species as well. Contemporary humans thus constitute a genus, known zoologically as the Homo genus which includes multiple living species as well as multiple living subspecies.

While it is true that members of the taxa of the Homo genus tend to be taxonomically endogamous in procreation as are indeed most Animals, yet it is also true that male xeno-rapists of the Homo genus in genetically diverse human societies in contrast tend to have a significant statistical preference for female victims within the Homo genus of other taxa than their own, when so confronted with opportunity for genetic selection in this regard. Much taxonomic differentiation within the Homo genus has thus evolved through the historically consistent Human behavioral pattern of war rape. Yet, human rape, human breeding activities and human technologies are inseparable elements of the ongoing history of evolution. The prehistoric Neolithic agricultural revolution which is known to have commenced about 12 000 years ago, came to affect quite substantially human taxonomic diversity as the growing populations of gradually invading agricultural colonialists in regions around the world – no doubt raped and enslaved surviving members of pre-agricultural human taxa who were much fewer in numbers and thus martially out-numbered.

It is often assumed that acknowledging human taxonomic diversity would lead to further historical calamities, yet this concern is justified precisely because most Humanist supremacists view taxonomic differentiation per se as an intrinsically valid reason for murder, enslavement and torture against other fellow persons with emotions. The distinctive discursive premise that taxonomic differentiation is an inherently valid reason for oppressing others is indeed equally shared by open racists and purported anti-racists alike. For multiculturalism to truly function in politically correct Europe, it would certainly be necessary to respectfully acknowledge and favorably embrace genetic diversity along with cultural diversity.

Arabist propaganda often echoes the Nazi propaganda claim that there is ostensibly one singular Jewish subspecies, yet there is hardly any other country than Israel whose citizens are more genetically diverse than are the citizens of sovereign Israel. In fact, Palestinians are drastically far more genetically homogenous than are the Jews of sovereign, indigenous Israel who in contrast are the by far the most genetically diverse and the most genetically inclusive human people in the world. In fact, Israeli multiculturalism has very much succeeded where European multiculturalism failed. Jewish society in sovereign Israel is a great and increasingly successful experiment in multi-taxonomic, integrated coexistence among human citizens of Israel to the distinct inclusion of many Israeli Palestinians who are part of predominantly Jewish communities. Jewish cities in Israel tend to be very multiethnic and which Jewish ethnicity that predominates demographically (if at all) varies from city to city and even between multiethnic neighborhoods of these cities.

While Ashkenazi Jews are no doubt a quite distinctive subspecies, Ashkenazi Jewry is certainly not the only subspecies that is on average more socio-economically successful than its human environs. Many such subspecies are indeed Jewish/Crypto-Jewish, yet the on average quite socio-economically successful Jains and Parsis of India are not. While many Jews/Crypto-Jews belong to various specifically Jewish/Crypto-Jewish subspecies, other Jewish/Crypto-Jewish ethnic groups belong genetically to subspecies whose global membership is mostly non-Jewish although they themselves often have some historical admixture from various historical Jewish subspecies as well.

Yet, all contemporary, specifically Jewish/Crypto-Jewish subspecies are the result of significant Jewish historical miscegenation with converts to Judaism, mostly before the historical emergence of Muslim & Christian religious imperialism, including specifically the Muslim/Christian imperialist prohibition on conversion to Judaism. Yet, there are non-Jewish ethnicities that famously have some amount of historical Jewish genetic admixture such as among non-Jewish Spaniards and non-Jewish Palestinians, yet that certainly does not make them in any form or shape ethnically Jewish. In contrast, for specific members of Jewish/Crypto-Jewish ethnicities to be descended partly or wholly from Jews by choice does not make such a Jew any less ethnically Jewish and the persecutors of Israel who claim otherwise are obviously thus bigots of the worst kind. Indeed, there is no other contemporary state on this planet where human miscegenation is more common than in contemporary, sovereign, indigenous Israel. Yet, the Jewish nation is hardly the only indigenous nation that has engaged in significant historical miscegenation. Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas is no more indigenous than is Hugo Chavez as genetic heritage alone, however little or much, does not confer collective indigenous status in Venezuela, Israel or in any other sovereign state on this planet as both Chavez and Abbas are descendants of distinctly imperialist, colonialist assimilation.

Enlarging, deepening and broadening multiculturalism so as to include non-human cultures would indirectly, yet quite significantly, politically benefit the very persons who are presently oppressed by an imposed & imperialist, yet fictionally idealized European genetic normativity. Such enhanced, ethical multiculturalism would not only benefit non-humans and non-Europeans, but significantly those citizens whose diagnosed or undiagnosed personal functions do not fit the idealizing Humanist supremacism of the day. Virtually no person completely matches any kind of mode of idealizing Humanist supremacism of the day which means that virtually every person with emotions who is affected by Human imperialism is also somehow oppressed by it. The distinct, yet unscientifically idealizing supremacist diversity denial by contemporary world ideologies is indeed the very political nexus where the global Person Liberation Movement should venture to carefully find common political cause with select, yet politically responsible and intellectually curious potential political partners in the global movement for universal functional emancipation.

The main underlying structural problem with multiculturalism is thus not too much acceptance of diversity, but rather by far too little.

35. The Next Paradigm

While Marxism is another mere form of idealizing Humanist racial supremacism and indeed another virulent anti-body ideology, its theory of public justification of economic oppression is not off the mark with regard to what should appropriately be referred to as the Industry of Evil, a sector of supremacist society that systematically victimizes persons denied personhood on a gargantuan global scale. Indeed, the fact is that virtually all oppression on part of the globalized Industry of Evil is committed in the name of economic gain. Yet, that does not mean that selective corporate/individual economic gain is intrinsically evil or inherently bad, but rather that enslavement, murder and torture on account of taxonomic life categories certainly are. The barely secularized Marxist version of Christian metaphysics provides an eschatology of tyranny, enslavement and oppressive, enforced pseudo-Franciscan fraternal conformity, yet the Marxist rhetoric of description in terms of the paradigmatic political problem at hand that the Person Liberation Movement faces is indeed highly relevant. This said; the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism is of course hateful of life generally in its rejection of and structural opposition to carnality and its differences.

Yet, what is certainly true is that the superstructure of the false consciousness of the day is indeed very much reflective of the base, meaning the very conditions of what is euphemistically known as “production” within the Industry of Evil. This is a structural predicament that for unknown reasons has been mostly ignored by the theoretically rather unsophisticated Person Liberation Movement. Yet, simply because something is wrong does not necessarily mean that the person who rightly points this out has also discovered the appropriate political substitution. Indeed, to choose between left and right and to metaphysically privilege one over the other is however, merely to choose the idealizing Humanist supremacism of barely secularized Christian-metaphysics-minus-Jesus and constitutes either way de facto endorsement of the Industry of Evil and the supremacist, anti-body ideology behind it.

Yet, the political strategies of the Person Liberation Movement are very much reflective of those of its corporate adversaries. The idea of using public relation techniques to promote certain patterns of digestion was of course strategically re-appropriated from the Industry of Evil as are many of the movement’s communication strategies. Yet, what is lacking in the organized Person Liberation Movement is a culture of individual excellence and professional accountability. In contrast, ethico-politically required political veganism tends to provide an individually eschatological framework of secular absolution from sins that are thus discursively externalized onto corporate opponents.

This is somewhat understandable considering that the Person Liberation Movement is one founded by philosophers rather than by critical theorists, yet this does not excuse the strategically unhelpful paradigmatic gap between esoteric Animal philosophies of those who think, lecture and write in the traditions of the respective Animal philosophy of Nietzsche, Strauss, Derrida and Haraway and the largely PR-based professionals of the Person Liberation Movement and their distinctly uncritical embrace of the racial supremacist Humanist consensus of the day. Esoteric Animal philosophers are therefore certainly at fault for not substantially seeking to influence the Person Liberation Movement and not intervening substantially in public exoteric discourse generally in this regard; trusting that philosophy eventually comes trickling down public discourse, decades later. However, so far this has not yet happened substantially in relation to the Industry of Evil and universal emancipation. The Person Liberation Movement, its elected leaders and employed professionals, are in contrast at fault for a distinct illiteracy in terms of fields of critical thought. It is not as if something is right merely because it tends to be agreed among critical theorists as invariably misconstrued by enforcers of political correctness, but rather that contemporary articulation of ethical critique of structured oppression tends to become ineffectual (and thus by extension much less ethical) if the critic is ignorant of scientific critique of structured oppression generally.

The first step for a social critic towards becoming politically responsible is to acknowledge that she is probably complicit in parts of the very structure that she criticizes in her own society. That is part of what Engels referred to as false consciousness which is a term that is highly relevant and indeed indispensable for every serious critic of the Industry of Evil. While intellectuals and activists in the Person Liberation Movement tend to implicitly presume that Person Liberation activism and individual striving for cruelty-free consumption provide individual, secular moral absolution, these important and indeed ethically required practices certainly do not provide absolution from discursive complicity. In fact, those active in or employed by the Person Liberation Movement tend to be more actively discursively complicit than are most politically passive, “silent” consumers of evil products. This has prominently been pointed out with regard to so called “animal welfare” advocacy but is no less true with regard to the natural right based, Kantian, utilitarian, eco-feminist denominations and so on within the Person Liberation Movement. While nominally claiming to oppose Anthropocentrism, this is a distinctly evil, supremacist Anthropocentrism which the Person Liberation Movement is yet to escape.

While truth is affected by conditions under which it is articulated and narrated, it is also often elusive in the sense of often not being final, but rather often seemingly almost endlessly deferred. Yet, in order to become politically effective, the Person Liberation Movement needs to acknowledge that it does not possess the final truth because truth tends to not be final. Political movements usually presume that they are in the right, yet to be publically successful, the Person Liberation Movement needs to acknowledge that it is wrong in the sense of having only superficially disengaged from the very supremacism and Anthropocentrism that it nominally opposes. Of course this is true, as is well-known of Enlightenment critique generally, in the sense of structurally not upholding one’s own standards of critique vis-à-vis one’s own particular beliefs. The practice of Derridean-influenced deconstruction is very much about holding Enlightenment discourse accountable to its own critical standards. It is obviously not possible to undo a structure of prejudice by enforcing that very structure of prejudice and that is a very important reason why the Person Liberation Movements tends to crash one time after another into very similar intellectual, ideological, metaphysical and political dead ends.

Rather than constituting an unbridgeable dichotomy between the ostensible “idealism” of naive movement grassroots and the ostensible “realism” of cynical movement professionals, the challenge at hand is to deconstruct the false consciousness of ostensibly self-evident & transparent so called “reality” of the supremacist construction of “being.” The fact is that the while nominally Animalist, the Person Liberation Movement is yet to disengage from the idealizing Humanist supremacist matrix in which it was molded and continues to be remolded. Indeed, merely challenging specific practices of anti-body oppression is insufficient unless that critique is also life-affirming, including positive affirmation of genetic diversity in society as well as affirmation of ethical death as an intrinsic, inherent part of ethical life.

The Person Liberation Movement also shares a certain affinity with Marxism in the sense that it is very good at pointing out what is wrong, but much less adept at providing appropriate, ethical substitutions in terms of shift of paradigm. Why is it e.g. that the Person Liberation Movement has yet to formally support (1) legally recognized universal personhood, (2) citizenship for all persons, (3) universal individualized equality, (4) universal axioms, (5) free health care services for all and (6) free education services even for so called “non-human” persons? The failure of the Person Liberation Movement and its intellectuals to provide inspiring, compelling visions for the future beyond simplistically merely pointing to what is terribly wrong has unfortunately resulted in political marginalization, indeed quite similar to how much of the lay leadership of Europe’s Jewry (as opposed to their US counterparts) has in past decades in effect politically marginalized itself by focusing relatively too much on the Shoah and Anti-Jewish prejudice (important subjects indeed) and by far too little on innovative articulation & advocacy of Jewish ethical vision for the future, in sovereign, indigenous Israel and beyond.

Activists and intellectuals of the Person Liberation Movement tend indeed to presume that they already offer a wholly different paradigm that is being rejected by surrounding supremacist society. On the contrary so, the Person Liberation Movement has yet to offer a different, yet compelling paradigm beyond its regular complaints. Getting it right thus requires acknowledging one’s own discursive complicity in the very ontological false consciousness and epistemological supremacism that the global Person Liberation Movement unfortunately still largely discursively shares with its corporate opponents. Rather, the Person Liberation Movement needs to articulate a wide-ranging political program of universal emancipation of positive, constructive demands to the inclusion of such issues as offering free health care services to everyone and not merely to certain supremacist primates. While the present may indeed seem more urgent than the future, discursively privileging the present (meaning the very recent past) over the future serves indeed to perpetuate the structure of that which is nominally opposed.

The global Person Liberation Movement cannot afford to ignore the question of the future if it is indeed serious about transitioning present supremacist society and its public discourse into a substantially different, ethical, public paradigm of universal emancipation – beyond that of contemporary hegemonic supremacism – through articulation and advocacy of both critical and affirmative universal axioms not limited by any kind of supremacist taxon or matrix.

36. Nurturing Intellectual Diversity

The international Person Liberation Movement tends to blame professional lobbyists employed by the Industry of Evil for the movement’s general lack of strategic victories as opposed to the relative political illusions of mere tactical victories. What has distinctly been lacking is rather investment in novel intellectual development by nurturing innovative intellectual diversity that transcends the conventional hegemonic dichotomy between the supremacist taxon of the day and persons denied personhood.

The existing, yet relatively few well-known original thinkers in the Person Liberation Movement are found in many different places around the world, each more or less insulated in her respective geographic location. While the global Person Liberation Movement is experienced in activism as well as in lobbyism in some jurisdictions, it is blessed with relatively few original thinkers. While this book is certainly a one-person think tank of sorts: bringing together genuinely original movement intellectuals from around the world would no doubt bring very significant intellectual, political and strategic synergies. In fact, when creative, original thinkers of related disposition meet, their shared creativity tends to multiply.

What is hence distinctly needed is certainly an international think tank devoted to bring about the necessarily diverse intellectual underpinnings of universal emancipation of persons generally with emotions. A new think tank of this kind would ingather the various, yet certainly very rare original thinkers of the global Person Liberation Movement from around the world, innovative thinkers of the movement who are indeed intellectually very much concerned – and responsibly so- with the cause of universal emancipation, including for the distinct political inclusion in emancipation of non-human persons presently denied personhood. It would be crucial that the mission of this new institution would be articulated very broadly so as to be intellectually inclusive of a multitude of paths for original intellectual development, both actual and potential, leading towards the common goal of universal emancipation, although this very goal may of course be articulated in various different ways.

The fellows of the think tank should include original Animal thinkers of various kinds, both private citizens and career academics, including university scholars writing in the various respective esoteric traditions of Animalist thinkers such as those of Friedrich Nietzsche, Leo Strauss, Jacques Derrida and Donna Haraway. A crucial element of this project would be not to fill such an institution with members of one singular intellectual tradition alone (as is the way think tanks tend to be constituted), but rather to bring together original, innovative Animal thinkers (as there are surely not too many of them) from various intellectual paths and fields of knowledge, both private citizens and career academics.

However, there is no doubt that a crucial element in the global intellectual challenge at hand remains to question and deconstruct moral prejudice. There is also no question that a multicultural setting that would bring together Animal thinkers from different cultures, ethnicities, backgrounds, intellectual traditions and indeed from various parts of the world would be particularly important in exposing and strategically deconstructing moral prejudice generally, since hegemonic forms of moral prejudice tend to be part of some kind of public cultural consensus in prejudice.

This think tank would have both full-time creative fellows in addition to those with busy academic careers to tend for elsewhere, as fellows of the latter category would for the most part merely spend a few intensive weeks of seminars there every year. Being inclusive of various paths of thought with the intention of encouraging evolution in intellectual diversity leading towards universal emancipation would indeed be crucial to strategic, intellectual and political success. This is why it is particularly important to bring together not only predominantly exoteric Animal thinkers (e.g. in the traditions of Peter Singer and Tom Regan) with predominantly esoteric Animal thinkers (e.g. in the respective esoteric traditions of Nietzsche, Strauss, Derrida and Haraway). The financial security of permanent fellowship in this think tank would also potentially enable some otherwise predominantly esoteric academic thinkers to write more openly, such as e.g. certainly done in this book, although admittedly intellectually founded in esoteric Animalist thought.

The Person Liberation Movement in various jurisdictions is endowed with a number of largely unknown, original Animal thinkers outside of academia such as e.g. American Autism Pride advocate Daniel Salomon and others in various countries around the world who may or who may not be publishing their original thought that could quite potentially become strategically vital for the Person Liberation Movement and especially so if diverse Animal thinkers from around the world are brought together in a particularly suitable singular geographic location, with some as permanent fellows and others as at least annual invitees to series of international scholarly seminars spanning over weeks.

Persons in the movement with hitherto undiscovered and/or unpublished intellectual talent should be systematically identified and indeed discovered, including by encouraging movement intellectual “contests” in various jurisdictions in original writing pertaining to universal emancipation. Such movement contests in intellectual innovation should certainly not have a pre-determined number of “winners”, nor should the winners be publically graded among themselves. Rather, while only the most original and innovative would eventually be invited to serve as permanent fellows of the new think tank, all contestants should come out of a contest feeling and identifying as winners in the sense of beginning to thread an intellectual evolution leading towards universal emancipation. This is so as intellectual talent for groundbreaking thought as a strategic movement resource is not merely to be harvested but its evolution must be proactively nurtured and encouraged in jurisdictions around the world, through movement educational programs pertaining to critical thought, organized both within and beyond academia. The new think tank would indeed have a particularly important role to play in the emergence and design of such inspiratory educational programs around the world.

The new international think tank should be fiercely intellectually independent, while opposing prejudice and remaining proudly devoted to nurturing intellectual diversity rather than mere singular truth. The think tank should be situated in a semi-rural location in North America such as e.g. adjoining the university town of Princeton, New Jersey, as big cities are distinctly unsuitable considering the very taxon-based Apartheid system and hazards these major urban agglomerations impose on many non-humans – as well as the distance this creates to the lives and societies of non-human persons with emotions who in modern urban contexts are reduced to mere “products” and “chemical models” of the Industry of Evil.

Big cities are distinctly unsuitable for this purpose, because Animal thinkers at the international think tank will need to focus at their diverse intellectual mission at hand and as the manifold distractions of the big city creates far too much sensory distractions, especially considering that Animal thinkers should strive to keep intellectually close to the very non-human societies of so called “nature.” The global Person Liberation Movement can ill afford to ignore the immense cognitive diversity at its disposal among its constituent members, including particularly a statistically rather disproportionate number of intelligent, innovative and high-functioning autistic persons whom like autistic persons generally do tend to be extremely sensitive to sensory overload in urbanized contexts as no advanced and professionally managed organization can afford to not take advantage of the diverse cognitive capacities at its disposal. Indeed, politically embracing genetic and cognitive diversity in addition to cultural diversity is a particularly crucial, strategic element towards achieving universal emancipation.

North America and especially the US Northeast with its proximity to the UN in New York City would be a given location considering America’s intellectually diverse and dynamic society, its global soft power and the fact that English is the global lingua franca. There are indeed a number of other North American semi-rural academic towns in addition to Princeton that could indeed serve as a suitable location for the new institute. The town of Princeton is an interesting case as it houses not only Princeton University, where Professor Peter Singer holds tenure, but also separate and independent research institutions as well, that are certainly not affiliated with that university. The quality of and proximity to an extensive academic library would no doubt be a crucial element in nurturing and providing space for evolution in intellectual diversity from within the Person Liberation Movement. Yet, the new think tank should become a distinctly international endeavor and as such not founded by one mere singular Person Liberation association, but indeed by the broader global Person Liberation Movement generally.

Yet, it is crucial to encourage thinkers who will not limit themselves to the conventional Humanist Apartheid divide between recognized and non-recognized personhood, however this is articulated. This may involve thinking e.g. in terms of anti-body prejudice of various kinds (physionomism) rather than necessarily in mere bodily categories of those thus affected. The institute would be devoted to nurturing a new and diverse, yet groundbreaking intellectually non-supremacist paradigm of universal emancipation, however variedly this indeed needs to be articulated, including by bringing together shared negative experiences on both sides of the current supremacist binary. This intellectual project would indeed require investing in the brainpower of the future rather than in the moral prejudice & mediocrity of present-past, by recruiting daring intellectual mavericks from within the Person Liberation Movement around the world, personally capable of truly innovative and creatively original thought, intellectually and originally so endeavoring towards our shared ethico-political horizon of universal emancipation.

37. How to Tell the Truth Right

The Person Liberation Movement has generally been more concerned with mere telling truth than with telling the truth right. Rather than purely relative or non-existent as is often claimed and even ascribed to critical theorists, truth tends to be diverse, complex and often multifaceted, yet telling truth is not merely the absence of falsehood or stating what is – or seems – so far apparent. Telling truth is not merely an ethical imperative, it is very much an art and a science. It is therefore quite understandable that advocates within the Person Liberation Movement who unfortunately do not master this very art (and in most cases never seriously tried to master it) do tend to resort to PR as some kind of ubiquitous political panacea.

This is very much due to the general discursive rupture/isolation that exists between the Person Liberation Movement with its generally politically primitive, superficial rhetoric of exclamatory “stops” on the one human hand and academic, esoteric Animalist philosophy on the other. While certainly not every Person Liberation advocate can be expected to become an instantly original, freethinking Animal philosopher in critical theory; the paradigmatic gap between plain Person Liberation advocates (whether activists or lobbyists) on the one human hand and Animalist philosophers on the other is one that distinctly needs to be discursively bridged.

What then is the appropriate ethical relationship between Animal philosophers and Person Liberation advocates? While the Animal philosopher articulates new and distinctly improved ways of telling truth, it is for the Person Liberation advocate – whether grassroot activist or grasstop lobbyist – to translate this into terms that are more easily intelligible to the voting so called general public, including to their elected representatives where such exist. This rupture and isolation is particularly peculiar considering that there is no other modern political movement that is more explicitly founded on philosophy and philosophers than is indeed the Person Liberation Movement.

Yet, Person Liberation advocacy is usually discursively rather stereotypical, superficial and indeed no doubt very insufficient in general rhetorical style, both in terms of articulation of the very political problems at human hand as rather constituted by the commercially induced mass suffering for the most part unilaterally imposed on persons denied personhood and in advocacy of usually completely insufficient political remedies constituting usually at best mere tactical victories. It is rather peculiar how remarkably similar and indeed stereotypical Person Liberation advocacy texts written by very different authors within the movement do tend to sound.

While this movement rhetoric reaches only a small proportion of citizens, the currently exclusively human citizenry is usually more profoundly affected by highly graphic, audiovisual materials transmitted through television and Internet, than by paradigmatically primitive, superficial and stereotypical political rhetoric by a Person Liberation Movement that uncritically and mostly implicitly so, accepts most discursive, taxonomically discriminatory elements of paradigmatic contemporary hegemonic, imperialist world supremacism. Yet, if the Person Liberation Movement is truly serious about the human-dominated world switching public paradigm away from paradigmatic supremacism, we must certainly change fundamental discourse from within this movement.

The almost default resort to PR in the movement constitutes not merely apparent discursive weakness despite the Person Liberation Movement having an exceptionally strong ethico-political case, but indeed an implicit admission that this political movement is one that does not know how to tell the truth right. Knowing truth will not help much if you do not know how to appropriately articulate the truth in question. The very tragic fact and truth is that we – human and non-human persons with emotions – live in a global age that in its combined totality is far more evil than any era before it. The contemporary extent of the Industry of Evil is historically unprecedented as this era is one that is truly evil and consistently hypocritical in its cruel treatment of billions of non-human persons denied personhood.

The persistent discursive problem with articulating appropriate critical representation of the Industry of Evil generally as with articulating appropriate critical representation of the Shoah specifically; would superficially seem to be that “mere words” would seem so insufficient in the face of this extremely well-organized, parasitical mass evil. Yet, as Animal philosophers reveal and articulate distinctly upgraded versions of telling truth; Animal philosophers do need Person Liberation advocates to transmit these very truths to the wider human citizenry in an indeed somewhat more simplified and exoteric, yet still profound rhetorical form.

While Animalist esotericism in the Great Tradition of the Art of Writing is both (1) pedagogy in the sense of helping serious & determined readers learn how to think and write innovatively & responsibly; Animalist esotericism also provides significant (2) individual protection through plausible deniability, from paradigmatic persecution through the prejudice of the present and yes particularly so within supremacist academia on which most Animalist philosophers do remain economically dependent for their very livelihood. Had I indeed been a career academic in supremacist academia, I would probably not had been positioned to write anywhere near as openly as I do, but rather would have had to write almost entirely esoterically so as not abort an academic career by being far too controversial in opposing the paradigmatic discursive evils of imperialist, hegemonic, contemporary supremacism in academia and beyond. Certainly, open society is not nearly as open as it ought to be.

For Animalist philosophers, the distinct understanding that human persons are in fact Animals has traditionally not been a particularly positive one, in the sense of understanding the dangers posed by World ideologies that discriminatorily and hypocritically sanctifies the particular World supremacist-imperialist life category of the time. The various human species and subspecies are not merely generally Animals, but most of these multiple human species and multiple human subspecies have increasingly evolved into collectively extremely dangerous Animals that engage in increasingly complex forms of mass parasitism against non-human persons, for the most part indirectly in the role as “consumers” of distinctly evil products of the Industry of Evil.

While non-human predators tend to act very ethically in sparing the ill from suffering in non-human societies, this is not true of genuine inter-Animal parasites whose entire life mission unfortunately seems premised on causing suffering to sentient members of other Animal taxa. While human supremacists tend to falsely and unscientifically conceive of themselves as some kind of “enlightened predator”, nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, human default parasitism has become increasingly rampant since the Neolithic “agricultural” so called “revolution” that commenced some twelve thousand years ago.

Beginning to tell the truth right about the evils of human mass parasitism requires indeed beginning to tell the truths about the very way that the various human taxa have long since been veering into the very moral abyss of evolutionary parasitism. Being herbivore is truly noble as is indeed being compassionate predator in sparing the ill from preventable suffering in the absence of hospitals in forests and oceans, yet there is nothing noble about industrialized evolutionary parasitism as practiced in the Shoah, the Gulag and the Industry of Evil. This poses a more profound ethico-political question. What to do with genuine inter-Animal parasites?

While we should not necessarily expect to find one simple answer (such as potentially genetic modification) to the general problem of the diverse and complex phenomena constituted by evolutionary parasitism generally by both non-human and human parasites, appropriately identifying and acknowledging the nature of this very problem in human-dominated supremacist societies, is indeed a very good beginning considering that all imperialist & supremacist, contemporary world ideologies are premised on projectively stigmatizing entire life categories of fellow human persons as indeed constituting intra-human parasites by not conforming to particular ideological modes of supremacist, taxonomic idealization.

(1) Exaggerated unethical liberty of Liberalism thus considers Humans with functional limitations as faulty social parasites. (2) Exaggerated unethical equality of Marxism considers entrepreneurs as faulty social parasites. (3) Exaggerated unethical brotherhood of Nazism considers Jews as faulty social parasites. These three imperialist ideologies are united in their systematic ideological and indeed paradigmatic, yet ethically completely unnecessary, structural discursive exclusion of non-human persons from liberty, equality and siblinghood. One broader, yet strategically crucial ethico-political challenge in telling truths right is thus to discursively and indeed paradigmatically include non-human people as recognized persons in liberty, equality and siblinghood.

The more recent story of the evolution of human civilization in the past twelve thousand years or so is unfortunately one of increasing evolutionary parasitism, a rather shocking situation and indeed serious societal predicament that should compel us to honestly confront the fact that just as most philosophers and most critical theorists seem structurally incapable of thinking critically, ethically, philosophically and rigorously in terms of technologies and evolution, so are “civilized” humans becoming increasingly collectively evil by means of ongoing evolutionary process which includes relatively rapid changes in tool use in the distinctly dysgenic Industry of Evil. This is not merely a question of individual “consumer choices” and “reducing suffering”, but a much more long-term evolutionary trend that began twelve thousand years ago with the Neolithic “agricultural” so called “revolution.”

Telling the truths right regarding the ways supremacist members of various human taxa increasingly torment non-human persons denied personhood on a particularly evil, global mass scale, should indeed appropriately begin with confronting the undoubtedly painful truth about the moral evolutionary abyss into which supremacist society is increasingly evolving. Merely adding another comma to post-Marxist disembodied (and yes distinctly anti-body), vertical analytical categories is surely not sufficient as this stereotypical historical enumeration of past emancipation constitutes indeed the hegemonic framework of contemporary global imperialist, Euro-human supremacism. Rather than challenging Humanist racial supremacism, intersectionality has become the very hegemonic contemporary Humanist racial supremacism. Indeed, beginning to tell the truth right about the Industry of Evil should commence with understanding what has went distinctly wrong with human evolution in the past twelve thousand years. Facing truthfully what has gone morally terribly wrong in evolutionary terms, would indeed constitute a very good beginning towards entering a different and indeed ethical path of evolution in the shape of universal emancipation.

While the Person Liberation Movement is acutely aware of the ongoing mass suffering that is mostly unilaterally inflicted on non-human persons denied personhood, understanding is indeed distinctly lacking in most other respects beyond mere simplistic awareness of this very presence of Evil practices. We are keenly aware in the Person Liberation Movement that something indeed takes place, something no doubt distinctly Evil, but do we really understand to any significant philosophical or otherwise theoretical extent what it is that is indeed happening on the supremacist-imperialist level of discursive structures that underpin the global Industry of Evil? This is indeed one acute and crucial philosophical question at human hand. Simple awareness that something occurs does not mean that we profoundly understand its intrinsic workings to any significant theoretical extent. Mere awareness of the existence of nuclear technology does not imply profound theoretical knowledge of the intrinsic workings of nuclear technology and so does not mere awareness of the existence of the Industry of Evil constitute profound understanding of the underlying, structural discursive techniques that underpin it.

As the Shoah – despite its gargantuan historical extent – constitutes a mere temporary anthropological, economic, genealogical, historical, ideological, logistical, metaphysical, moral, political and technological extension of the Industry of Evil and its supremacist morality, the two should indeed be studied in parallel so as to distinctly improve theoretical understanding of what it is that indeed took and increasingly do take place. By that I do not mean to infer that any person should make over-generalizing, simplistic and ultimately demeaning historical analogies, but rather rigorously study both fields with similar and yes parallel methodologies. Improved theoretical understanding of the Shoah specifically could substantially help improve theoretical understanding of the supremacist-imperialist, paradigmatic discourse underpinning the broader Industry of Evil generally as well as of course vice versa.

Understanding what has gone distinctly wrong is certainly imperative in charting a substantially different, non-supremacist ethical route of evolutionary paradigm pertaining to universal emancipation. Indeed, continually upgraded articulation of truths is contingent on continually improved theoretical understanding of the intrinsic workings of the subject matter at hand. It is thus far too easy to underestimate the significance of that which we do not yet well understand, including crucially the very much diverse cognitive capabilities of incredibly diverse human and non-human persons generally with emotions.

38. The Re-Appropriation of Anti-Racism

The term speciesism which was coined in the early 1970’s is inaccurate, impractical and has failed to gain more prevalent currency even inside the Person Liberation Movement. Rather, discrimination on the basis of species is ethically crucial in the sense of making the primary ethical distinction between taxa amongst whose members there is consciousness as opposed to all other taxa (where sentience in contrast never occurs), rather than between those particular primates commonly known as so called “humans” (however broadly or narrowly conceptualized) as opposed to all other taxa as indeed articulated in both Nazism & Humanism.

While the official supremacist category was once officially classified as a species by Carl Linnaeus as Homo sapiens, it is now in official zoological taxonomy classified as a subspecies (i.e. a race) officially known as Homo sapiens sapiens. Not only is the anthropocentric distinction between racism and speciesism now formally inaccurate since both forms of supremacism are based on a race/subspecies. Rather, this very distinction between racism and speciesism is in itself supremacist and indeed racist, since it makes an unfounded distinction between persons legally recognized as persons as opposed to persons denied personhood.

What is known as anti-racism is not only based on cognitive diversity denial in relation to both sides of the supremacist divide as towards both human & non-human persons, but is importantly the contemporary hegemonic-imperialist form of genealogically evolved historical European racism. In fact, historical Nazism and contemporary Humanism do not differ in any substantial manner except for where the artificial, imposed, dichotomous line is formally drawn between legal persons and legal sub-persons.

While it is true that historical Nazi German supremacists were inconsistent in their own supremacism – so are in fact also Humanist supremacists, considering the different and drastically better treatment (although still often very patronizingly) afforded to many non-human fellow family members of human-led households, particularly in economically developed countries. Contemporary “anti-racism” as it is presently known is the contemporary version of Eurohuman supremacism, based as it is on an illusory, yet culturally/metaphysically distinctly European & hegemonic/imperialist Eurohuman cognitive normativity on whose basis not only non-human persons denied personhood are excluded from contemporary morality, but also how in various ways both various European humans and various non-European humans are structurally oppressed for not conforming to the globalized, yet fundamentally unfounded Eurocentric imperialist cognitive normativity such as. very oppressively in compulsory diversity-denying state-funded education worldwide.

The non-capitalized term animals in the sense of non-human members of the kingdom of Animalia taxon is severely derogatory and indeed extremely offensive no less than is the term Untermenschen which is capitalized as are all nouns in German. Rather, taxa whose members amongst whom there is consciousness are in fact constituted by persons (in the sense of sentient organisms) while members of taxa where consciousness does not occur are rather mere individuals, yet often very ethically important in other respects. In contrast, the capitalized term Animals should be exclusively used as a designation for all members of taxa among whose members’ consciousness does appear. This would not only include all members of the Animalia taxon such as the various disparate human taxa, but also as to the degree that such taxa become known (if at all), members of extraterrestrial taxa amongst whom consciousness also appears.

The notion that human persons & non-human persons, biologically & psychologically constitute a binary in the sense of distinct, fundamentally opposing – and on each side a cognitively homogenous binary category – is of course completely preposterous and constitutes severe European secular/religious metaphysical & moral prejudice. The “Pre-Reformation” Catholic Church decided to recognize non-European colonial subjects as fellow humans in a distinctly Christian and pre-Linnaean sense (i.e. effectively as fellow European primates) following the European discovery of the Western Hemisphere and did so despite royal Spanish protestations as the Holy See certainly did not do this out kindness, inclusiveness, respect and tolerance, but simply because they wanted to baptize non-Europeans into Western Christianity and thus “save their souls” from their own cultures. This dichotomy of Man/Animal is not really different from similar and parallel, yet very much oppressive and diversity-denying Andropocentric bio-dichotomies such as Man/Black, Man/Minor, Man/Female and Man/Deviating.

Furthermore, Nazism & Humanism are in practice virtually metaphysically identical in their view of both contemporary Jews & contemporary non-human persons denied personhood. The commonly articulated gentile supremacist Humanist view according to which virtually every perceived conflict of interest (whether real or artificial) between human Jewish Israelis and their human gentile regional neighbors – shall be determined against the Jews (which if consistently implemented would have calamitous and indeed genocidal consequences for the Jewish people considering that friendly human neighborhood) and is essentially discursively indistinguishable from how non-human persons denied personhood tend to be almost automatically judged against and “legally” denied personhood in contemporary supremacist civilization, including through artificial conflicts of interest when there is actually coherent & shared common ethical interest. E.g. both humans and non-humans (as if these were two internally homogenous groups!) have a strong and abiding interest in banning all forms of torture, yet scientific torture against enslaved non-human persons is consistently justified through an artificial alleged “conflict of interest” when in fact human & non-human persons have an enduring common interest and indeed common cause in both medical advancement as well as banning all forms of torture, including all forms of extended incarceration against any person.

Rather than inventing a new word for racism, a new and different, universally emancipatory meaning of anti-racism needs to be articulated which would not exclude contemporary pervasive prejudice against Jews & other persons discursively denied personhood. Anti-racism is a good term which happens to have had become completely corrupted to the extent that it has become a name for that which it ostensibly opposes as contemporary so called “anti-racism” is the very hegemonic ideology in whose name racism against both non-human & Jewish persons denied personhood is systematically perpetuated & perpetrated. It is interesting that while White racists have for the most part abandoned the paradigm of European cognitive supremacism (recognizing that e.g. East Asians are in many respects on average more psychometrically high-performing), nominal “anti-racists” have consistently retained this European cognitive supremacy in the sense of very oppressively imposing a singular, yet completely illusory European cognitive norm, not only on European humans, but literally on everyone else, meaning all terrestrial persons, whether indeed formally accorded or formally denied legal personhood.

Rather than simply throw away quite appropriate terminology with slightly imperfect etymology (such as the terms racism and anti-racism), that have been severely misappropriated, this terminology needs to be strategically re-appropriated by the Person Liberation Movement together with Jewish, African and other global allies throughout this planet so as to refer to prejudice on the basis of taxa amongst whose members there is consciousness. What is needed is thus a kind of extended multiculturalism that would also be inclusive of non-humans and sentient cognitive diversity among persons generally. To begin with, the Person Liberation Movement needs to become inclusive of human persons who are classified as different or deviating in various regards (but are simply part of a cognitive/somatic mosaic), so as to make room for existing and future cognitive diversity, not only among human persons, but also crucially among non-human persons as well.

Political rhetoric from within the Person Liberation Movement is still almost entirely premised on the mostly unfounded Man/Animal dichotomy which prevents political progress in universal emancipation since it basically affirms racism & supremacism as the hegemonic-imperialist norm, through repetition and re-inscription of racist/supremacist discursive premises of globalized moral prejudice. To become effective, the Person Liberation Movement must significantly integrate with democratic politics & civil society generally and this may be almost impossible to achieve through the movement’s paradigmatically supremacist Eurocentric rhetoric of political Eurohuman charity. The movement’s rhetoric & general narrative is really extremely simplistic and seems to have progressed very little since Jeremy Bentham’s revolutionary dictum (“the question is not, Can they reason ? nor, Can they talk ? but, Can they suffer ?”) and is thus appropriately abbreviated and represented as follows:

Suffering > Wrong > Stop!

No historical emancipatory movement would have had substantially succeeded with such embryonic and theoretically superficial political discourse. It is thus hardly surprising that the Person Liberation Movement tends to think of PR as a political panacea. This trivializes the Industry of Evil since the surface of this planet is full of suffering among the various human species and human subspecies. The mass crimes industrially & systematically committed on a gargantuan global scale against non-human persons “legally” denied personhood, do not merely produce almost unimaginable sufferings on a gargantuan scale, but it is outright Evil and even certainly what some would refer to as satanic. This trivialization is similar to how overly simplistic & over-generalizing comparisons of the Industry of Evil to the Shoah, to Transatlantic Plantation Enslavement and to other such historical calamities deliberately committed by human supremacists against fellow humans, do tend to falsely perceptually diminish and trivialize the very gargantuan global scope of the mass crimes that are the Industry of Evil.

Of course, as Leo Strauss points out, Plato in The Republic, Machiavelli in The Prince, and other esoteric philosophers like them did not advocate tyranny & cynicism as the Person Liberation Movement’s hired lobbyists tend to do out of misguided pragmatism, but these thinkers rather sought to subversively undermine tyranny through textual subterfuge by satirically exposing tyranny as it is actually practiced and doing so by writing simultaneously on exoteric and esoteric levels through the Great Tradition of the Art of Writing so as to understandably protect their own personal personhood from persecution by agents of tyranny and doing so by means of producing textual plausible deniability. Indeed, the Person Liberation Movement will have little need for PR once it begins to seriously educate its advocates (activists as well as lobbyists) in how to dynamically think innovatively & independently in appropriately articulating truth beyond the Person Liberation Movement’s current overly simplistic & paradigmatically unfortunately non-transformative mono-narrative.

Person Liberation Movement advocates tend to presume that to know what is wrong and subsequently oppose that with some PR tricks is somehow ethico-politically sufficient. It demonstrably is not. The movement’s rhetorical monotony of Eurohuman charity is really unwarranted; why not make more use of e.g. art and satire? This movement is actually one that has little need for “smart tricks” (as if it was a circus), since our cause is so fundamentally ethical & faithful to truth and hence the need to proactively nurture universally emancipatory cognitive/intellectual diversity within the Person Liberation Movement itself and in society/environment generally so as to strategically advance a far more diverse & discursively dynamic ethico-political public articulation leading strategically towards universal emancipation.

The Person Liberation Movement must in principle & practice oppose anti-body prejudice generally irrespective of partly sentient taxa. Personhood as such is thus generally more ethically important than in which categorical name a person is subjected to anti-body prejudice as paradigmatically privileging life categories over personhood tends to serve the political perpetuation of contemporary hegemonic-imperialist Eurohuman racism & supremacism. As a matter of fact, the Person Liberation Movement undermines its own very arguments & strategic capacity to discursively transform society by accepting discriminatory paradigmatic discursive premises & distinctions of contemporary racism/supremacism that are ultimately entirely inconsistent with universal emancipation. In fact, this is the political equivalent of fighting fire with fire and in this case hellfire with hellfire.

The strategic discursive & indeed paradigmatic re-appropriation of anti-racism & Personhood is hence very much ethico-politically crucial so as to further the noble and necessary ethico-political cause of universal emancipation.

39. Symptoms vs. Causes

The global Person Liberation Movement is strategically very weak & isolated and in part precisely so because it has consistently chosen to privilege human agency of choice over human discursive structure of anti-body prejudice. Yet, the movement privileges only human agency, not non-human agency which is effectively discursively reduced to mere capacity to experience pain. This means that while the Person Liberation Movement privileges human agency over human structure, the movement reversely privileges non-human structure over non-human agency.

Merely opposing pain means effective discursive re-inscription of the very supremacist negation of universal, yet extremely diverse personhood. Although seemingly heroically so, the movement has in practice chosen to become Oskar Schindler rather than Winston Churchill. Unfortunately, the movement’s constantly repeated argument that pain must end, hides the denied personhood of those billions of persons annually victimized globally under hegemonic, powerful Humanist racial supremacist discourse in the name of that taxonomic misclassification that is the ostensible subspecies/race Homo sapiens sapiens.

The paradigmatic, binary Apartheid of pain according to which anti-body structure that oppresses non-human persons is somehow mystically ontologically different from anti-body structure that similarly oppresses human persons – serves indeed to perpetuate the general political isolation of the Person Liberation Movement vis-à-vis virtually all other segments of civil society. The movement’s basic missionary structure of Eurohuman charity is mostly focused on (1) grasstop pain reduction and (2) grassroot salvation through consumption which humans outside of the Person Liberation Movement quite inaccurately tend to perceive as a form of pseudo-religious sectarian asceticism.

The fundamental problem with all this is that while the Person Liberation Movement engenders significant human public pity for non-human persons within the paradigm of Humanist racial supremacism, yet the movement has failed to become strategically transformative with regard to the powerful discourses that permit the Industry of Evil to continue to enslave, torment and murder on an almost unimaginably gargantuan scale of evil terror. What is hence needed is a distinctive strategic reversal. Rather than privileging human agency & non-human structure as of present, the Person Liberation Movement must strategically privilege non-human agency and human structure.

While ethical consumer choice is critical for creating increasing consumer demand for ethically produced indistinguishable vegan consumer products (although most consumers of such indistinguishable products are non-vegans), strategic change will ultimately happen through government phase-out and mostly not through personal conscientious human consumer choices. Ethical vegans in the Person Liberation Movement tend to ignore that they themselves also do tend to be severely discursively complicit in paradigmatic structures of Humanist racial supremacism which uphold and perpetuate the gargantuan, constantly repeatedly enacted infernal terror of the Industry of Evil.

While again, human consumer demand for ethically produced vegan indistinguishable products is indeed indispensable for ethical vegan identical product development paving the way for ultimate governmental legal phase-out, such consumption patterns are widely considered in the Person Liberation Movement as a kind of personal utilitarian absolution, thus for the most part ignoring how ethical vegans are still very much complicit in anti-body oppression due to misguided adherence to semi-conscious, hegemonic, supremacist discursive premises and hence the absolute ethico-political necessity of encouraging genuinely transformative strategic discourse pertaining to human discursive structures of Humanist anti-body oppression generally, irrespective of the racially supremacist human/nonhuman binary that arbitrarily divides affected persons with emotions into legal persons and legal sub-persons.

While the Person Liberation Movement often claims to be emancipatory – citing affinity with supremacist movements of emancipation – yet there is no inclusive emancipatory “we” in the Person Liberation Movement in the absence of Animal identity politics, quite unlike in politically effective movements of emancipation, both present and historical ones which usually operate through the inclusively emancipatory “we” of identity politics. After all, how can the Person Liberation Movement hope to substantially transform discourse of external human persons when the movement’s own discourse is so disastrously & strategically non-transformative, consisting as it does of simplistic, rhetorical and exclamatory “pain stops”? The ubiquitous reliance on PR by Person Liberation Movement professionals is a sign of utter discursive weakness since the movement has generally not learned how to tell truth right outside of the hegemonic-imperialist paradigm/framework of Humanist racial supremacism.

The paradigmatic focus in movement discourse on human agency & non-human structure is one that the Person Liberation Movement most regrettably shares with the Industry of Evil. This is how bad things are in terms of paradigm and uncritically embraced semi-conscious supremacist discursive premises, not only inside the Industry of Evil, but in its mirror-wise image that is the merely superficially secularized Post-Christian Person Liberation Movement. Yet, acknowledging what is terribly discursively wrong inside the movement – and has indeed been very, very wrong for a very a long time – is a crucial and indeed indispensable step towards truly transformative discursive change and then subsequently even more successfully paradigmatic change of universal emancipation, including universal personhood. This clarifies indeed the urgent strategic need for paradigmatically transformative focus on personhood generally & anti-body prejudice generally irrespective of the presumed ontological affiliations of those very persons thus affected.

40. Rethinking Environmentalism

Territoriality is at the very the heart of politics. On the Pan-Liberal spectrum, the democratic political left champions selective human personal territoriality against only certain specific forms of human collective territoriality (i.e. against privately owned large corporations), yet do not reject all forms of human collective territoriality and so does similarly but reversely the democratic political right on the same Pan-Liberal spectrum in championing selective human personal territoriality against only certain other specific forms of human collective territoriality (i.e. against the public sector and against the trade unions), while like the democratic political left often uncritically accepting yet other forms of human collective territoriality. What is thus characteristic of liberal democratic politics in civilization/imperialism is the almost constant tension between personal territoriality and collective territoriality, however defined and articulated. The entire Pan-Liberal political spectrum (from Social Democrats to Libertarians) typically couches this in Humanist supremacist discourse, including through a variously inclusive supremacist equality from which persons officially not classified with the supremacist bio-category of the day are systematically excluded as well as from legally recognized personhood and thus “legally” considered & treated as sub-persons.

Yet territorialities – both personal and collective – tend to be multiple, diverse and overlapping and this is true of most territorialities generally among most persons generally. As Derrida points out, a global war has now been waged against non-human persons for two centuries. While conflicts between territorialities are part of the web of life, the question of how to relate to territorialities of others is indeed a crucial ethico-political question which indeed is not one, but many. While the laws of human imperialism recognize both personal territoriality and collective territoriality in various forms and shapes, it is generally judicially interpreted to only recognize that which is formally defined as allegedly exclusively human modes of territoriality. None of this should be construed to imply that human territoriality generally is therefore intrinsically, entirely and eternally wrong, but rather that human territorialities constitute mere further layers of territorialities, interlaid among territorialities of persons classified as being outside of the supremacist bio-category of the day. Territoriality is the basis of conscious competition, conflict & peace, none of which could exist without this evolutionary cognitive phenomenon of territoriality.

The strategic challenge is thus to ethico-politically learn to live to coexist with ethical territorialities of others, something which is not necessarily simple, straightforward or even automatically reciprocated. The binary Humanist notion of property/jurisdiction certainly needs to be deconstructed rather than simplistically abolishing either half. Both property & jurisdiction thus need to be substantially delimited in ways that would also respect ethical territorialities generally rather than simplistically limiting legal recognition of territorialities to territorialities of human persons. While there are both personal and collective territorialities among persons of the current supremacist bio-category of the day, so are there among many other Animal taxa of persons with emotions. Ethical territorialities among persons “classified” as external to the official supremacist bio-category of the day are not merely reducible to Darwin’s theory of evolution (there are after all so many other crucially important aspects of universal personhood) but certainly constitute legitimate parallel ownership & legitimate parallel jurisdiction on the part of non-human persons.

Property and jurisdiction are hardly dichotomous in real life as the mutual left/right political rhetoric tends to presume, but it is rather that territorialities are radically interdependent on each other as are life forms generally, parasitical and non-parasitical. While not seeking to abrogate human ownership generally, it needs to be universally legally recognized among humans at some point in time that the human owner of a forest is certainly not the sole owner, but rather that this co-ownership is one among thousands of interlaid ownerships across the same locus. Similarly, human jurisdiction in the forest is not the sole jurisdiction in that very forest since other taxa of persons with emotions (such as ants), have more or less complex societies of their own, exercising their own very jurisdiction. Even so, territorialities of persons generally are not necessarily reducible to the supremacist left/right Humanist property/jurisdiction dichotomy, especially as considering that both modes constitute precisely interdependent territorialities.

Yet, human jurisdiction generally is deeply flawed, such as with regard to inter-human domination between human nations and so is human property considering that non-human persons are “legally” considered sub-persons who according to the laws of human imperialism (or so called “civilization”) cannot own property or exercise jurisdiction. Borders of human sovereign jurisdictions should thus be redrawn in accordance with linguistic statehood (originally coined in India) whereby borders between human nations are drawn in accordance with the national-heritage idiom of its human citizenry so as to mutually minimize unnecessary intra-human minoritization of local intra-human majority communities. Respecting territorialities of other human nations through universalizing discourse would indeed constitute very important progress towards respecting ethical territorialities generally of persons with emotions. While many non-human ethical territorialities are essential, so are also many human ethical territorialities.

Environmentalism thus needs to be recast in terms of finding appropriate ways to ethically coexist among multiple persons of interlaid territorialities while mutually avoiding domination. While some inter-personal/inter-group relationships require harmony, others require competition or conflict to varying degrees, all of which are part of the web of life. The so called “Humanity” left the historical forests that are known as “Paradise” in certain mythologies, when certain human taxa began to parasitically assert control over reproduction of non-human taxa, both persons and plants, about 12 000 years ago and thus laying the initial foundations for the contemporary, globalized gargantuan evil enslavement of billions of persons with emotions as part of the distinctly Satanic Industry of Evil.

Theories of conflict resolution (i.e. territorialities in conflict) are generally faulty in the sense of being founded on imperialist racist-supremacist Eurohuman idealization when in fact humans are anything but cognitively homogenous, neither within nor among human taxa. The erroneous assumption thus tends to be that intra-human conflict is a mere aberration from paradisiacal “pre-fall” harmony when in fact Evil Intentions may play a very important part and even more importantly so than rational self-interest in disputes of territorialities that humans take part in. Humans evolved genetically to live as herd Animals in relatively small tribal units rather than as now increasingly in complex and anonymous mass societies, the latter similar indeed to how some non-human taxa also live. While Bonobos (the closest relative of humans) solve conflict (meaning rival territorialities) through sexual intercourse, this could potentially become substantially practiced in predominantly human societies as well. Selective ethical swinging (partner-swapping) could thus potentially become a very important element in human political conflict resolution. A substantially deconstructed paradigm amounting to non-Humanist conflict resolution is thus very much required in Human political affairs generally and especially so with regard to environmentalist affairs as long-term survival tends to be mutually dependent on successfully adaptive coexistence of rival territorialities.

The supremacist division of labor between the Environmental Movement and the Person Liberation Movement thus needs to be strategically erased through ethico-political strategic rethinking of territorialities generally of persons with emotions, whether these territorialities are indeed personal or collective. The strategic problem that the Person Liberation Movement thus faces is one of human supremacist territoriality that denies legal force to personal/collective territorialities of persons discursively denied personhood such as Jews and other systematically discriminated Animals. Judicial discourse in civilization/imperialism recognizes neither universal personhood nor associated ethical territorialities of persons denied personhood and this deplorable, unacceptable discursive condition makes possible the continued perpetuation of a gargantuan moral abyss & indeed satanic space that is the Industry of Evil and its “consumer” collaborators.

To claim “rights & liberties” is another way of asserting territoriality as is demanding respect for “property & the rule of law.” Yet, the Person Liberation Movement and the Environmental Movement do need to distinctly reinvent themselves paradigmatically in the sense of demanding universal personhood while respecting ethical territorialities of persons with emotions who are denied universal personhood by Humanist racial supremacists. Demanding that the human law as it is written and as it is interpreted respects ethical territorialities of persons denied personhood is thus a strategic issue of critical ethico-political importance that could strategically bring together the two movements to effect substantial ethico-political change in this tragic Era of Evil. All persons with emotions need territorialities in their spaces (society-environment) and while many forms of territoriality – human and non-human – are ethical, certainly not all are such as pertaining to ambitions of territorial domination between human nations.

Similar to how the Person Liberation Movement discursively reduces non-human persons to mere agents of suffering, so does the Environmental Movement reduce non-human persons to mere agents of cyclicity. Yet, “legal” sub-persons are persons with emotions who are not just mere sufferers in perpetual life cycles. There is so much more to universal personhood than either of these two important aspects and there is particularly so much amazing cognitive diversity out there among persons generally with emotions. The Person Liberation Movement thus needs to embrace cognitive diversity generally among persons with emotions as a political strategy against anti-body oppression generally and not just as against those persons designated as sub-persons, but also among members of the supremacist bio-category of the day. The Environmental Movement in turn needs to come to accept that non-human societies are not merely Cartesian machines (i.e. so called “eco-systems”) but are constituted by persons maintaining their own personal/collective dynamic space in interaction with other persons. Once this is better understood, it should become substantially easier for the two movements to articulate joint strategic ethico-political positions towards universal emancipation, including human national legal recognition of the legal force of both universal personhood & ethical territoriality generally, including linguistic statehood.

First published in 2011-2012