I hate the labels of left and right, liberal and conservative, since they mean different things to different people. But generally speaking, veganism and animal issues are about Nature and they rise above the distinction. Nature is eternal. The common sense truths of Nature are eternal.
Case in point. If I said to you that it would be best for lions if tigers were brought in and placed among them, that we would have strength from diversity, you would probably think me crazy. Of course tigers and lions should live in their own habitat. It is natural. Despite them being both cats, they are different enough and should be left to their own separate (but equal) societies.
But switch to humans and try the same. If you suggest France should be left to French, or England to the English, or Sweden to the Swedish and suddenly you are saying something blasphemous (unless talking about Israel or Saudi Arabia or China, it is ok for them to have their own separate closed off societies, even though in the case if the first two, they didn’t exist until the 20th century as countries, unlike England or France). You might even be called racist, a word that has lost all meaning or possible negative connotation.
Ditto if talking about generalizations and stereotypes. If you were alone in a cave with a hungry bear, common sense would say to be careful, since a hungry bear can be dangerous. And yet, if we switch it to humans, one is supposed to believe that if you are waltzing down a street in the poorest part of Kentucky, or a street of Baltimore with its 65% ethnic population, you cannot make generalizations about your reception in either, or at least the latter. That would be stereotyping, generalizing, and unfair although apparently it is ok to say white men cannot jump.
It is an odd double standard, but it shows the anti-natural philosophy within the liberal thinking of today. If you do not like your gender you can opt to change it by decree or surgery. Bestiality and pedophilia used to be considered taboo, but thanks to “progress” we find it being talked about openly (the Guardian newspaper recently did a story where it discussed human sex with dolphins in a non critical fashion and the Family Guy television show has had jokes about sex with dogs).
I think it is critical for animal rights activists and vegans to be aware that liberalism has ZERO to do with animal advocacy just as conservatism does. However, one might point out that with liberals in charge, animals are sent to factory farms and experimental labs in China, dog fighting by black football players is considered “tradition,” the Makah have the right to hunt whales (as we saw in 1999 under Clinton and Gore), and wars a plenty have been endorsed or engineered by the same “bleeding heart” liberals which kill nonhuman animals as well as human ones.
Have you noticed that at the same time we are told criminals need tolerance and understanding, and migrants who rape women and children need compassion, the same people saying it are often indifferent about killing mice in labs, wolves in Norway, or Orcas in captivity? The so-called “liberal” Hollywood did not give Blackfish Oscar attention (maybe it would have if they worked in a sub plot about Auschwitz)? How many films has Hollywood made about various animal exploitation, compared with the films it has done on WW 2 concentration camps?
The Wall Street-owned studio Disney, recently killed alligators in its Florida theme parks just as a precaution against tourist deaths. Contrast that with Disney under its founder, when films critical of hunting (Bambi) and circuses (Dumbo) were made.
At the same time (1930s), the other studios owned by foreign arrivals from Eastern Europe avoided animal rights themes entirely. They even financed a film the Yearling which advocated the killing of deer. Why? Perhaps it had to do with religious outlook. The major film studios such as Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros, and MGM were owned by people who leaned much more to the Old Testament than the New. I am not a Christian, and consider the entire Bible to be a thoroughly negative book for Nature appreciation, but without question, the Old Testament is filled with cruelty and intolerance and mass violence, and I would expect those that take it to heart would have little respect for Nature. After all, it is Judaism (and Islam) that have ritual animal sacrifice (factory farm cruelty designated holy), not Christianity (and yet Christianity gets all the focus and criticism for the media, both the corporate press and the so-called alternative left media).
Western media has been controlled by people closely aligned to Old Testament thinking for most of the 20th century. In 1900, writers like Mark Twain could talk about the torture of animals in labs, or Leo Tolstoy would discuss the slaughterhouses of Moscow. But then there was a shift to fascism, racism, and sexism. It was not until the 1960s that issues began to creep back into the media, and then it was ridiculed and dumbed down. The common sense and eloquence of George Bernard Shaw was replaced by the incoherent academic BS of Peter Singer (who in the 2000s advocated bestiality. Oddly enough, despite coming from a Judaism heritage, he did not appear so vocal in condemning kosher slaughter).
As we proceed into a future where it has become obvious that the media is a tool of Wall Street and globalists, animal activists should factor this into their scrutiny of racism, sexism, and other so-called progressive values that get pushed much more vigorously than the immediate critical injustice of nonhuman exploitation.
In conclusion, I came across this quote, from a source so vilified by the same corporate media that howls for wars and supports industrial-scale animal torture and lies without conscience, that their opinion means nothing:
“When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.” Adolf Hitler