All Animals Equal? Including Brutes?

That All Animals Are Equal, is a most respected philosophy in the USA and other parts where plutocracy reigns. I explain why below.

Philosophy is not innocuous, far from it: it’s how people are ruled. Ruling over others is intrinsically evil. So evil, actually, that baboons, these super aggressive and militarized animals, have diluted rule in three ways. Baboons have two sort of “guides”, the rulers, and the innovators. In a baboon troop between alpha females, alpha males and numerous innovators, few adult baboons are just subjugated.

This makes the present situation of the human species all the more remarkable. We are subjugated. Rousseau said it was because of civilization itself. That was stupid (yet, it led to Nazism and Sovietism). In truth we are subjugated because of particular philosophies. Generally I target the (sort of) wisdom known as Abrahamism (Judeo-Christo-Islamism), because rather rabid citizens in America and the Middle East claim to believe in it enough to bomb others (see invasion of Iraq, etc.).

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

This French Spider Monster Is Your Equal, Says Princeton

But then there are those philosophies which are a bit more sophisticated in the way they subjugate. The animal rights movements first blossomed under Nazism. Coincident with the rise of plutocracy, and the decay of everything else, this time in the USA, not Germany, it has also blossomed in the USA.

Peter Singer claimed in 1974 that “All Animals are Equal“. This made him extremely famous. He got a prestigious appointment at Princeton University. Many professional “philosophers” throughout the Anglo-Saxon juggernaut claim loudly to view Singer as the “greatest philosopher alive”. I have an adverse interpretation, naturally. Before I come to that, I should expose Singer’s fundamental idea. Let’s quote him extensively, lest I be accused to distort him. (Those who are more interested by what I have to say about them rather than what I view as sophisticated inanities, can hyper-jump after the quote.) Peter Singer wrote:

“I gave reasons for believing that the fundamental principle of equality, on which the equality of all human beings rests, is the principle of equal consideration of interests. Only a basic moral principle of this kind can allow us to defend a form of equality which embraces all human beings, with all the differences that exist between them. I shall now contend that while this principle does provide an adequate basis for human equality, it provides a basis which cannot be limited to humans. In other words I shall suggest that, having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species – the nonhuman animals.

This suggestion may at first seem bizarre. We are used to regarding the oppression of blacks and women as among the most important moral and political issues facing the world today. These are serious matters, worthy of the time and energy of any concerned person. But animals? Surely the welfare of animals is in a different category altogether, a matter for old ladies in tennis shoes to worry about. How can anyone waste their time on equality for animals when so many humans are denied real equality?

This attitude reflects a popular prejudice against taking the interests of animals seriously – a prejudice no better founded than the prejudice of white slaveowners against taking the interests of blacks seriously. It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own beliefs, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among them. What is needed now is a willingness to follow the arguments where they lead, without a prior assumption that the issue is not worth attending to.

The argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species is simple, so simple that it amounts to no more than a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests. We have seen that this principle implies that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess (although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do).

It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be disregarded. But the principle also implies that the fact that beings are not members of our species does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.”

There are so many wrong idea in the preceding quote, which contains all what Singer is famous for in a nutshell, that it’s hard to know where to start. I will keep to the mains (what gives electric shocks, yes).

Notice the preeminence of the word, and concept, of “interest” in Singer’s thought system. This may sound innocuous. It’s not. In Islam (as in Judaism and Christianity) charting interest to a fellow-man is forbidden (haram). I believe in moods.

By making the notion of INDIVIDUAL interest, which is the center, and crux of so-called “capitalism” or so-called “markets”, as in “free markets”, the highest value imaginable, Singer and his accomplices are, not so implicitly, putting “the market” (aka American imperialism), at the very top of the pyramids of all values.

So notice, that if we want no more sexism and raise, Singer says we have to embrace interest, thus markets. Plutocracy shall make you free!

No wonder Singer joined in 2011 the professoriate of New College of the Humanities, a private college in London, in addition to his work at Princeton. Instead of lashing out, with high taxes on plutocrats, and thus trample their delicate interests, Peter shall strive to prevent their suffering.

After all, plutocrats may be of lesser intelligence than us, yet, we have to respect their interests, because they are animals, and their right to life and no suffering, are primordial..

How come such stupidities have become so famous and respectable? Precisely because they force the philosophically minded, if they want to graduate, to respect stupidity. Thus the mood of abject submission to stupidity is enforced as the highest moral value, and proof of the highest smarts.

Now of course, Singer’s incredibly offensive message is disguised with mould red herrings about (correct) trivialities. Singer’s Key Idea is that equal does not mean the same (who could say otherwise?). Example: one doesn’t have to assign a right to abortion to men in order to assign it to women.

The real issue is the concept of equality. We make a mistake in thinking that it requires equal rationality, says Singer. Singer claims that rights used to be denied to women and non-whites on the grounds of their limited rationality.

To “prove” this, Singer rolls out an example. A woman feminist in England wrote an essay on women deserving equal rights: She pointed out that, just across the Channel, in Paris, a strong attempt had been made to give women the right to vote. A Cambridge philosopher replied by asking if “brutes” also deserved equal rights. That was in 1794. Singer says, then, yes, even brutes have rights.

Women had been fighting for their rights, and getting some, sometimes, for 22 centuries, ever since Roman Pater Familias were deprived of their right to kill their wives.

However Singer exhibits his own limitation: “limited rationality” was an Anglo-Saxon argument: in Antique Rome, there was NO assumption of limited rationality on the ground of difference of origin! Similarly for the successor regime of Rome, France. Racism, race, limited rationality, exclusion are ANGLO-SAXON concepts, enshrined in the congenital slavery of “blacks” (some of whom were white).

As a child I lived in Africa. French speaking Africa (more than 200 million people in Africa ). Once I crossed over into an English speaking African country. To my amazement, I found there were two sets of toilets at the customs. A first set, immaculate, very fancy, for “Ladies and Gentlemen”. In the distance there was another set, rough and disgusting, of a suspicious brownish color, for “Males and Females”. That was my first introduction to racism. (In French Africa, there were only one type of toilets.

When the Franks got to England in 1066 CE, they freed the slaves. They conducted a census: 20% of the population was enslaved. Recently the buried corpse of a Black African was found in England, post Frankish conquest. He was a free man.

Singer’s thesis of deep racism in history is not correct. Rome was NOT racist. The two large empires which made Western civilization, Roma and the Imperium Francorum, believed exactly that. That’s why seven queens of the Franks reigned around 600.

So what is the connection with Nazism? If Nietzsche were here, he would say: nihilism. By claiming that mold, lichen and arthropods have “equal rights”, Singer is trashing the human race, he may as well say cow dung has equal rights.

The Nazis were crafty enough to find that angle well before Singer. Nobody could accuse the Nazis to be inhuman, quite the opposite: they passed strong laws preventing cruelty to animals, and created vast and numerous national parks.

It was all a smokescreen. The interest of Nazis was to kill people, so they could suck their riches, from their hair, to their teeth (!), to the properties they owned before the Nazis stole them.

The solution to Nazism was to inflict on Nazis enough pain, suffering and death, so they will quit by force their pretense to animality.

The rise of plutocracy is directly connected to the mood we have equal right to sheep. No wonder Mr. Singer is well employed.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , ,

20 Responses to “All Animals Equal? Including Brutes?”

  1. Gmax Says:

    I had been wondering how long it would take you to attack the animal equality movement. Singer changed in recent years, no? Some of his followers now talk of sentient animals, not all animals, as he used to. Do you think Singer can be viewed as a cause of animal liberation front terrorism? You know attacking labs, freeing the animals, threatening to kill scientists. FBI views them as domestic terrorists


  2. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice: “Women had been fighting for their rights, and getting some, sometimes, for 22 centuries, ever since Roman Pater Familias were deprived of their right to kill their wives.”

    This concept is not dead yet!

    Men in Saudi Arabia “can eat their wives if they are suffering severe hunger” under a bizarre new fatwa reportedly announced by a religious leader in the country.
    Saudi Arabian grand mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah allegedly issued the guidelines to allow a husband to eat his wife’s body parts in extreme circumstances.


    • Gmax Says:

      But then Muslims insist they treat women with lots of respect. They cover women to protect them, they say. Women equality is a society thing. Bad society, bad women. I run alone as a woman in forests of the west. It’s awesome. Few years back, nobody dared. But people get killed by guns in cities, not rape in the woods


  3. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice: “Thus the mood of abject submission to stupidity is enforced as the highest moral value, and proof of the highest smarts. ”

    This explains why it is in the interest of banksters to collect interest for money created by the people (or by the govt created by them to work for them) for doing nothing, at no risk and huge reward.

    “The rise of plutocracy is directly connected to the mood we have equal right to sheep. No wonder Mr. Singer is well employed.”

    You mean “sheeple”, right!



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, indeed, if Sheep and People are equal, as Princeton “philosopher” Peter Singer pretends, we may as well call them both “SHEEPLE”.

      Instead of creating money through QE, that is, through PRIVATE banks, the TREASURY could just create trillions out of thin air. The hell with “deficits”. Deficits are the tears of plutocrats. Deficits tear plutocrats apart, that’s why. But who needs plutocracy? Plutocrats. It’s a vicious circle.


  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    Two random tangents :

    First – You are aware of Nazi eugenism, that’s granted. It is my recollection that the Nazi eugenics program (both in its open, legal form, and its hidden, criminal form, IE the organized murdering of “undesirables”) was a direct offshoot of the well-established Anglo-Saxon eugenics & scientific racism movement, and notably its leading US branch.
    AFAIK, while Nazi eugenics laws stopped dead cold in their tracks after 1945, the USA ones went on until the 1970’s (and one might say the undercurrent ideas are still here).

    This is yet an another white-washed truth about WWII and Nazism, but IIRC, in Mein Kampf, Hitler quoted/praised the US laws on immigration as the basis of Germany’s future racial hygiene regiment; and, from the Nazi coming to power to the start of the war, US eugenics experts, legislators, philantropists,… came to Germany not only to inform themselves and report back on that successful racial program, but also to act as guides and counsels in how to apply eugenics principles into law (as was the case in the majority of early 20th Century US States).
    This is one more example of Nazi Germany actually be an all-too apt pupil of “Nazi” central.


    • Gmax Says:

      Patrice has explained in details, with quotes, that the Nazis said, in public, that they would do the same as what Americans did with Indians. Maybe she could remind us where she wrote that down?


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yes, but I forgot where, Gmax, and I have zero time to search. Nazis were very loud about copying what was done in the USA, just as much as Tocqueville was silent (although Tocqueville was a direct witness of the Cherokee Death March, something the Nazis copied at then end of their Thousand Year Reich…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The American influence on Nazism is hush-hush. However, Kant, the Prussian parrot with a nasty attitude, had supported slavery in the New World. The re-introduction of slavery by the Pope under Portuguese insistence was itself born of the mood Muslim occupation had brought in Iberia…


  5. Kevin Berger Says:

    Second – The pet theory that I pull out of my hat, not to be more explicit, is that this “Anglo” mindset, that obsess me as much as the Jews obsess IV, I guess, heh, is a logical resultant of their psycho-history/psycho-geography.
    Meaning that People do have characters too, including virtues, flaws, pathologies, even, that are shaped up by their environment. Sort of a pop “Gaia hypothesis”, Nations/Peoples as living creatures with lives of their own.
    Anyhow, AFAIK, the defining features of the British Isles has been
    a) their insularity, making for a relative but quite real sanctuary (weren’t the original islanders there remnant of proto-Basques fleeing the Celtic onslaught?), and
    b) the fact nonetheless that there’s been successive invasive waves of relatively tiny conquerors, both from the outside and the inside, resulting in “layers” of conquerors/conquered defined by Peoples (think the indigenous “Welsh” being named “strangers/outsiders”).

    If France is a construct Nation, of different People agglomerated around a central power to (tentatively) form one People, the UK is an empire to begin with – a place where the People stay the same, as per a couple more or less recent genetic studies I can dimly recall, but where new rulers come in once in a while, and you have better know which people you belong to, and where is your place in the conquered/conquerors pecking order.


    • Gmax Says:

      I thought there was a study that the original English stock of 40 millions was roughly the same, and all the growth to 63 million now was from children and grandchildren of immigrants, no?


  6. Kevin Berger Says:

    Btw, I’m fully aware this is all branlette intelectuelle, even more so since I’ve just posted it online (and God know the WWW is where such drivel flourish).
    Still, a part of me is rather pleased to think that this pet peeves of mine explains at least in part the otherwise weird Love/Hate (well, hate, mostly), Superiority/Inferiority complexes the Anglo world harbours in regard to France (and that is almost entirely un-reciprocated, at least nowhere near on the same scale) : it is in part a decolonized people complex, a bit like what one can find in many Algerians.
    I wouldn’t go as far as psycho-babbling it into a need to “kill the father” (and if they literally could, they would, no doubt at all) or some other BS, but when such or such UK or US Elite member takes a jab at the French (see JEB!, just recently), it is an identity marker aimed at the common rabble. A deeply, deeply resonant, almost prostate-like, way of signifying “I’m one of yours, I’m not one of those foreign-speaking rulers who eat pork and mutton and agnew, and not pig, sheep or lamb”).
    Seen like that, it’s almost touching. 400 years part of the same polity, and hating/longing for us “frogs”. Neurosis as a National identity core, it would be sad if it didn’t make for such a predatory, fucked up on all levels (sexual, notably) quest for dominance.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I agree about the decolonized psycho. They can never erase it, as the Franks removed slavery in 1066 CE, and Anglo-Saxons re-established it in 1619 CE… Same with universal right to vote, given in France by 1789, but in the USA much later. Where did you put what “online”?
      The Algerian thing is first top down, as both French (pseudo) intellectuals and the fascist Algerian state insist on it…

      The anti-French thing in recent decades is mostly self-interested: Bush just proclaimed that the French worked only 3 days (quoted without comments, as a fact in USA media, including state NPR), the French ambassador squealed that France gave a 16 weeks pregnancy leave (the law in California too, BTW…)

      The frogs have to counterattack by reconstituting the empire. Just give visas to ALL erudite Francophones (seems Fabius is going that way)


      • Kevin Berger Says:

        “Where did you put what “online”?”
        Oh, I was just referring to the comment I just made above that one, and more generally, to my self-indulgent habit of commenting.
        Still OT :
        What’s interesting about the Anti-French thing in recent decades is that it followed Anti-French things in earlier decades, and even earlier centuries.
        The US of A seem to suffer from recurring fit of anti-French resentment, the later one was just that, the later one, there will be more, sooner or later.
        And the amusing bit is that such fits seem to be each built around some particular negative traits attributed to the French/France; and those do not get displaced by the next ones, but remain as some kind of stereotyping sediment layers.
        So, basically, the reflexive “French = surrender = weakling pussies pushovers = white flag LOL”, that has clearly leaked far beyond the US public (Eastern Europe, Singapore, Malaysia,…) and has been happily adopted by the usual suspects (type banlieusards qui pissent sur la France) is here to stay, as a permanent fixture of the perception of France, along the other, older imputed flaws (too Catholic, too race-mixing, too leacherous, too effeminate, too free-thinking, too unbelieving, too socialist,…), but this time on a more global scale.

        Which, given the complete, absolute clusterfuck that was the Iraq war that started this new iteration of Anti-French thing, and how this “War on Terror” not only failed, but failed because it was BS to begin with, prosecuted ineptly and dishonestly, is really adding insult to injury.
        But, well, the US public won’t do any kind of introspection nor repentance about the dead Iraqis, the suffering in the region, the chaos, hell, not even about the sleazier aspects of the “war” from a strictly US-centric pov (they’ve been robbed blind by cynical grifters, paying lip service to the cannon fodder losing their legs balls to mines, and laughing all the way to the bank)…
        So, expecting an acknowledgement of having been cunts toward the French, much less an apology… fat chance of it.

        But, I digress once again from the point of this entry, and indulge (again) in my pet peeves.

        As for “France reconstituting the empire”, it would need to reconstitute France first, starting in the minds of its “citizens”, and working up from there to enforcing its laws, its culture, its language, rebuilding its armed forces literally from scratch,… If you prefer, being a real country, a real Nation-State again, instead of being a glorified appendix of the current empire, managed by local satraps.

        Vaste programme, comme disait l’autre.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Maybe if France had not insisted that fair minded Americans (Jefferson, etc.) had to free their slaves, and employ them instead, while in Paris, there would still be slavery nowadays in the USA. So no winder the resentment of the white American class. Hey, what else, folks?


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Reconstructing France means reconstructing her empire, namely Francophonia, and pushing out the American empire from said parts. It’s in the best interests of the USA too, as the USA is overstretched.


          • pshakkottai Says:

            Patrice: I agree and said as much in a previous comment. Only France can teach secularism to the middle east and Africa.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            As long as France frees herself of the polluting philosophies which emanated from those who collaborated with Stalin and Hitler (for the later, see De Beauvoir and Sartre, sadly, and shockingly enough!!!!!!!!) As those collaborators were, and are still, immensely respected, they reproduced with second knives, who, in turn, made a lot of the “French Theory” crowd. Only now, in the last 6 months, literally, is there a reaction from many French intellectuals (none of them superbright, though…)


  7. I FEEL, THEREFORE I AM | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] will, sentience, qualia), so does not put all species in the same basket. It does not fall in the same excesses as Princeton’s Peter Singer and other in the “animal rights” movement who claim (with the Nazis) that fleas and humans have equal rights (so we may as well […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: