Modern-Day Nazis (Blog)

[James81]

lol i can't believe this thread is still going.

[Majesticzero]

Originally Posted by LVGeneration

Steve's site is not mainstream, the people that found out about him and read his blog and participate in the forums are people interested in personal development and have a certain outlook on life. We read Steve's articles because we want to better ourselves.
I think everybody here is open to Steve's ideas.

But here's my problem. Who's Steve "attacking" with the aggressive and condescending article? Us? His readers? WE are the ones that are here because we care, remember? We wouldn't be here if all we cared about was having a 9 to 5, come home watch TV, eat a nice mcmuffin and drink some Coke. All I'm saying is that Steve doesn't need to make such an aggressive "case" on us, OK, you showed us how the chickens are treated, no need for the extra Nazi stuff, or the attempt to make us relinquish eggs all together.

If we had a Nazi mentality/level of consciousness, would we even be here, reading Steve's blog and participating in the forums? Isn't this all about loving and supporting each other, trying to better ourselves and the world by influencing the collective consciousness in a positive manner?

Yes, I know, Steve might think the only way to make change happen is to be aggressive sometimes, to act,not just standby. Still, his aggressiveness and use of the word Nazi makes no sense to me in a blog that is read by his adepts anyway. And for such an article to leave the circle of friends/readers and try to convert others would be hard, given that people usually don't react well to attacks. You can catch more bees with honey I guess. So, in the end, what was the purpose of the article?

Why do you feel attacked by Steve? Is it that he said something stupid that is totally wrong? In that case you would know it's wrong and you could say: Steve you're totally wrong on this one. And you didn't need a defensive reaction.

But most people react defensive on this blog post. Why?
I think it's because something inside you knows he's right. But you're not ready to deal with this truth yet.

And again, this post by Steve explains these "attacks": Personal attacks explained by Steve Pavlina

[bluedragon]

YouTube - The Ultimate Raw Fish

How can this cruelty continue?

[Andreas Hofmann]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

YouTube - The Ultimate Raw Fish

How can this cruelty continue?

I don't know, eating an animal that is still alive seems to be a more concious action than eating animals processed in some form you don't associate with the animal anymore, say, a hamburger. Many people eat meat, but find it sickening if they see a slaughterhouse video. If you decide to put a still living octopus in your mouth and kill it by chewing, at least you have to grasp the full extend of your action. Hard to ignore the truth in that case.

[LVGeneration]

Originally Posted by Majesticzero

...you didn't need a defensive reaction.

But most people react defensive on this blog post. Why?
I think it's because something inside you knows he's right. But you're not ready to deal with this truth yet.

(My apologies for responding so late)

I truly did not mean to transpire as too defensive, the comment I left expressed my feelings after reading the article though. I am ready to deal with "this truth", and I know he's right about the animal cruelty that is happening. I watched documentaries and videos like that long before this article. What I was confused about was his wording, his liberal use of "Nazi", which I thought was uncalled for.

You ask why most people react defensively, it's simple. Obvious. Because the article is written in a way that deliberately attacks everybody that uses any chicken products, even free range eggs. To openly imply that eating pasta at a restaurant, or anything that contains eggs, is just like buying a meat grinder and lending the guy in the video a helping hand...well, it is offending. Is a vegetarian a Nazi because he eats pasta from time to time? How about bee pollen consumers? They must be Nazis too, the bees suffer greatly when pollen is collected. Everybody that eats anything else but plants/vegetables/fruit is a Nazi, I guess. If I'm not a vegan, am I a Nazi? In a perfect society we would all eat local, organic produce. Reality: thousands of acres of forest are cleared and animals are brought to extinction to make room for grains/vegetables/fruits that are grown with pesticides by underpaid workers and then flown half way across the world, ending up in health stores. No one is snow white in this story, you might be somewhat greyish if you're a vegan that only eats organic and LOCAL. But let's be realistic, it's hard to do that and expensive. There are several degrees of "nazi" I guess, like for example Hitler was a first degree Nazi, and George Bush's grandfather was a 10th degree Nazi... Hmmmm...

I should call it quits, it seems like I'm sliding into the defensive mode again...This polemics is too broad to fit in one comment. We can draw lines between us and point fingers all we want, claiming that one side is right and the other wrong. But where will that lead us? Love and peace to everybody!

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by LVGeneration

Still, his aggressiveness and use of the word Nazi makes no sense to me in a blog that is read by his adepts anyway

Who is Steve's "adept" ? That's probably the last thing Steve would want.

[LVGeneration]

I meant supporter, follower, adherent, partisan, someone who shares Steve's points of view, if not entirely, then enough to be here.

I chose a wrong word there, I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker.
Any more semantics or something more related to the topic?

[Lupe]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Biggest Nazi ever, right down to the blue eyes and blond hair.

I'm only 1/4 German though. My grandfather's last name was Schmidt, although he served in WWII on the American side (stationed in Germany at the end of the war).

What is the rest of your ethnic makeup?

[ohTen]

Originally Posted by jestlilome

and for the record, do I think it's cruel, yes. But instead of fighting for the rights of the male chickens, why don't you fight for the right for these male chickens to be sent to some 3rd world country to feed baby HUMANS!!!

more baby humans could be fed more effectively with the grain that currently goes to those chickens...

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by James81

lol i can't believe this thread is still going.

I second the motion.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by ohTen

more baby humans could be fed more effectively with the grain that currently goes to those chickens...

We could feed human babies to the chickens and get revenge

[Betrade]

IMO, the abortion industry is way more like Nazism than eating eggs.

An entire class of people are being denied life legally and the government sanctions it. In fact, WAY more have died through abortion then Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed of.

Eggs?? No comparison IMO. I'm not saying that animals should be treated badly, but there's really no comparison to what was done during the holocaust. Again that was the deliberate extermination of certain classes of human beings sanctioned by sitting governments and accepted by millions of their fellow human beings.

I just can't see any real correlation between what happened then and what happens in the chicken/egg industry; however bad it may be at this time. I believe the comparison demeans the memories the millions of human beings who were murdered during the holocaust. There is a difference between chickens and humans, That's not to say that any animals should be mistreated, but hey, we DO have to eat, and humans have been eating meat, eggs and other animal products for eons.

I don't denigrate vegetarians, vegans; etc for their food choice, but I could just as easily make the claim that slaughtering millions of plants to feed vegetable eaters is a holocaust. I think it's a absurd assumption, but after all, they are living, breathing life forms and they do die in order that other may live.

Do they feel pain?? Who knows?? Maybe they do at some level; maybe not, but if they do, then they're being murdered too. They're being raised strictly to be harvested and sold for a profit, as well as to be eaten. Even fruit bearing plants are eventually cut down or die.

They're pruned, chopped, cut, processed, squeezed, etc. They're removed in order to make room for new and better plants fairly regularly as well, so who's to say what they feel?? We KNOW that they do feel something. Plants react negatively to certain stimuli, so who's to say they're not experiencing some type of suffering at some level??

If they are, are vegetable eaters also comparable to Nazis?? I personally don't believe that at all, but if they're suffering at some level throughout the process from growing to the dinner plate and the same analogy is applied, I don't see a huge difference. I mean, does a cornfield collectively suffer as the big machines come in, strip the fruit from the plant and others tear the roots up from the ground afterward?? maybe they do and maybe they don't; but if the possibility that they do in fact exists, then how is that any more or less humane than chicken farming?? The end result is still the same; which is death at some point.

[Victor Vikingr]

Originally Posted by Betrade

There is a difference between chickens and humans,

I think what it comes down to is that some people find being "compared" to chickens is insulting because they hold the opinion that humans are "better" in some way, while other people have no problem with this way of putting things.

Originally Posted by Betrade

I don't denigrate vegetarians, vegans; etc for their food choice, but I could just as easily make the claim that slaughtering millions of plants to feed vegetable eaters is a holocaust. I think it's a absurd assumption, but after all, they are living, breathing life forms and they do die in order that other may live.

As pointed out numerous times before (although it shouldn't be expected that people read the whole thread, of course), more plants die when raising other animals for meat/dairy/eggs/etc. than if we just eat the plants ourselves.

Originally Posted by Betrade

how is that any more or less humane than chicken farming?? The end result is still the same; which is death at some point.

There will always be death, it's impossible to live without killing. However, that doesn't mean we should kill more – I'd say we should rather focus on killing less.

[Betrade]

Originally Posted by Victor Vikingr

There will always be death, it's impossible to live without killing. However, that doesn't mean we should kill more – I'd say we should rather focus on killing less.

Of course there will. I was just applying the same analogy to plants.

I actually Googled "Do plants feel pain", and there are many interesting articles that claim that at some level, they just may. If this is true, how do vegetarians and other non meat eaters defend their own killing?? I personally don't believe that they have any need to because everyone has to eat, but I do think it's a good question anyway; for the sake of conversation.

The bottom line is, humans and other creatures need to ingest organic matter in order to prevent starvation and live.


I get my eggs (which I very seldom even eat BTW) from a little girl down the road; a friend of my son's; who sells them. She has about 50 or so chickens, give or take, along with a few turkeys, a few sheep and goats and other little critters. This child just loves animals and takes very good care of them all. I guess you could call them true "free range" eggs; whatever that means.

So I'm no "Egg Nazi" personally, but if I were to buy them at the grocery store, which I have; many times, just as I have gotten them from locals who happen to raise chickens; I still wouldn't consider myself to be a participant in anything remotely close to what Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and others have engaged in against their fellow human beings.


Nature operates and species survive as a direct result of the life/death cycle of other living things; and that too is perfectly "natural".

But; humans aren't going to stop eating eggs and/or other living things any time soon; if ever; unless we create some new type of food that sustains human life without killing anything in the process; and it would also have to taste good or no one would want to eat it. At this point, that is highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

Again, I never have and never will condone outright cruel treatment of animals, but I also will never buy into ideas such as "total animal liberation" that groups such as PETA advocate. It's an unrealistic and very dangerous idea.

Turning lions, tigers elephants and other animals loose from our zoos and freeing every domestic creature to roam wild and survive on their own would be disastrous, and thankfully, PETA and those who support such an agenda will never get their way in this country. We just can't have lions, bears, elephants; roving packs of wild dogs and feral felines and other potentially dangerous creatures roaming our towns and neighborhoods; stalking and devouring our children and others; not to mention spreading disease. It's just and unrealistic, and IMO, truly ill conceived and dangerous goal. It would also be dangerous for the animals themselves in many cases.

Also; animals themselves will never give up killing in order to stay alive, and that's just the way it is. Of course, they have no industrial complex to make their killing more efficient or expand it on any scale, but whose to say that they wouldn't if they had the intelligence to create such a system to save themselves the trouble of hunting and decrease their chances of starvation when hunting isn't so good?? Squirrels and other critters store up food during the warm season to survive the cold winter. Lots of animals do, so in a sense, they';re similar to us in that way. The obviously have a certain degree of intelligence to do this.



We humans just happen to be on the top of the food chain for the most part, but occasionally, people are still occasionally killed and/or eaten by wild animals; and sometimes, even domesticated animals.

But it's a cruel world as far as food/eating/survival is concerned at many levels; from the tiniest creatures right up to humans, who have managed to figure out how to mass produce food so that more people may eat, be it animal or vegetable. It's an ugly and brutal business in many cases, but a starving child in the Sudan wouldn't care one bit if he or she were given industrially produced eggs for breakfast today. He or she would be grateful that someone; somewhere made it possible for them to eat for another day; the death, mistreatment or confinement of chickens be damned.

Without industrial food production, the number of people on this planet would without a doubt be far lower, because there just wouldn't be enough food to sustain the billions of people who live here. There IS enough food, but people still starve every day because other people aren't getting enough of the food to those who need it the most. We throw enough food in the garbage every day to feed the world.

We have to ask ourselves another question. Who would we to allow to die off in order to stop industrial farming and food production? Who gets to decide who gets to eat and who must starve in the end?? I sure wouldn't want to be the one making that decision.

There are lots of good causes, but they have to followed to their logical conclusions and consequences before they're implemented on any grand scale. We can ban the type of egg production and other methods that people find repulsive and wrong when it comes to food production, but what are the consequences and who; and how many humans will die as a result?? This then becomes an ethical question. Which is better; doing no harm to animals in every situation or allowing millions; if not billions to just die due to a lack of food?? Do you want to make that choice and decide who gets to live and who must die? I don't.

I'm also not talking strictly about animals either. Lots of people are against industrial farming of fruits and vegetables as well for various reasons. Again, if we were to eliminate it, who then decides who gets the lower quantity of food and how is it divided up??

If everyone just raised their own food, what about places where it doesn't rain for a few years and nothing will grow?? What happens during famine times? Do we just say "oh well, that's their problem; let em' die"?? I hope not.

It's usually the industrialized countries that DO mass produce all kinds of food that step in and at least attempt to feed as many as possible when those situations present themselves, and without modern methods of food production, we probably wouldn't be able to do so at the level we're currently able to. Food is shipped by the tons into famine stricken areas every day, yet people are still starving to death daily.

Every 8 seconds a child under 5 dies from water born disease or from a lack of water somewhere; and in many cases, it's simply a result of those people lacking the means or knowledge to drill a well. It's sad, but true.

So; are we our brother's keepers?? If we are, are we not obligated to produce as much food and clean water as we can in order to step in and help those in need??

It ultimately comes down to ethics, and even though we need to treat animals ethically and not be overtly cruel to them; which I'm all for; but not to the extreme like PETA and other groups are. I mean, PETA has openly condoned the fire bombing and murder as a means to "liberate" animals. I just can't buy into that type of mentality.

Again, this is another cause that has to be thought out to it's logical conclusion and consequences, and killing and maiming humans as a means to implement "total animal liberation" is something I will never agree with.

PETA is an extreme example and overly used as an example; and it's always the extremists who give any group a bad reputation; and create a situation that most people don't ever want to be associated with. OTOH; there are also many extremely wonderful groups that do many good things to improve the lives of animals, but they don't destroy property, commit arson and murder; or harm their fellow human beings in the process.

I think a sensible and reasonable balance is probably a good long term goal as far as this issue is concerned. We all need to eat, and need to produce enough food to feed as many as possible, because there ARE billions of people who need to be fed. But we also need to stop wasting food for starters (that's one of my pet peeves and something I NEVER do); and we can take steps to make life more humane for the animals that we do ultimately kill and eat.

We can also continue to promote the eating of more fruits and veggies, which we are doing, WAY more than in the past; but in reality, many people really LIKE to eat meat (and eggs of course) and as long as the demand exists, animals will be raised and killed for food, and eggs will continue to be sold and eaten.

[mklaebel]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Sure. Consequently, I've never had an abortion. All the babies I've made (2 so far) are still living with me. They don't eat eggs either.

This universe grants us abundant freedom. If you want to get pregnant and dump the babies, eat a dozen eggs every day, or go around shooting people for fun, then by all means go for it. My duty is simply to help you understand why you're making those choices and if you're truly congruent about it.

If you feel good about grinding up baby chicks to make your breakfast, or if you'd prefer to feast on human flesh, then enjoy your meal. But if you've got some guilt about that, perhaps you should take a deeper look at that behavior pattern and consider alternatives that may be a better fit for you.

***

I don't log in here very often, and I don't suppose many will agree with me, but I grew up on a working farm.

We raised chickens, ducks, cattle and guineas. Many times, I helped with the killing, plucking, and cleaning of the birds. I understood that they were raised for this purpose and that we only took what was needed to feed our family. Also, they were free-range in a large barnyard with grass and trees and a roost. They were fed corn and other natural grains and generally treated as valuable members of our immediate ecosystem, just like the rice and soybeans we grew on the farm.

My grandfather would walk his cattle through the entire slaughter process. He cared about them (would prefer their company to his own mother's) and made sure they had as quick and painless an exit from this world as was possible. The cattle were also free range on over 75 acres of alfalfa fields.

I do have issues with industrially produced eggs, chicken and other foods. I do my best to get my food from known local sources like our local Mennonite market). I can't always, but I try. I also adopt rescued dogs and cats (and a dwarf rabbit).

Basically, I have little or no guilt. I do not feel that I am a Nazi to any degree. I respect that an animal gives its life for me to be nourished, just as plants have. Just as soldiers have given their lives in an effort (sometimes misguided as those directing them might be) to protect my ability to make this post without fear of arrest, torture or death.

If all of this makes me less conscious, so be it. I can live with that.

[Ravmar]

Steve, for the record your blog has inspired me to start a 30 day vegan trial. Thank you.

[Tim Brownson]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Do unto others. Would you trade places with the male baby chicks? If not, how can you ask them to endure something you wouldn't want inflicted upon you?

An animal that is a carnivore and must hunt for its life does not take more than it needs. It does not cage and torture an animal for months or years before eating it.

Seriously? because I wont change places with a chicken I'm being unfair.

I'm totally against battery farming, but to be honest I wouldn't change places with a chicken that lived in a 10 bedroomed house, earned $1m per year and had Angelina Jolie over each night for a going feather stroking.

I just don't really want to be a chicken whichever way you look at it.

And there are some animals that kill more they can eat, foxes are a prime example. Throw one of those suckers into a luxury coop and don't expect many happy chicks to walk away and to the best of my knowledge, foxes don't freeze their kill for later on in the week.

[Cochonette]

Basing your own morality on that of a coyote is extremely immature. It would be like saying, "Babies aren't potty-trained, so why should I be?" "Birds have no control over when they take a dump, so why should I?" I don't think you're really that immature; you're just making random excuses for something you fully intend to do anyway.

I think there certainly are similarities between the Nazi mindset and that of animal-eaters, but it's not wholesale. I have read some interesting academic articles on this matter that I think get the point across without reducing the issue too much. I think it would be more compelling to point out that many survivors of the Holocaust became vegetarian as a result of their experience, PETA's Holocaust exhibit was designed by a Jew, and Jews like Isaac Singer have drawn connections between the Holocaust and our relationship with animals in writing.

I don't think that Steve's article is very effective because people are too immature and care too little about the issue to begin with. I'm not attempting to equate people exactly to Nazis here, but if we were to tell the Nazis they were the AntiChrist, I don't think they'd care anymore than they did before. People who just don't care whatsoever aren't going to care more because you tell them the Devil would do the same thing they're doing: They simply don't care. The Nazis cared about "Germans" and were convinced that Jews didn't matter. So the question is how do you get them to understand that Jews matter? How do you get meat-eaters to understand that animals matter? And humans and other species are not exactly the same experientially, so the solution isn't going to be exactly the same.

The article on intersections between the Holocaust and animal exploitation is a review of the book Eternal Treblinka (which I haven't read). Treblinka was a place where massive numbers of Jews were exterminated. Well, animal exploitation is like an Eternal Treblinka in that it never ends, it's not about extermination but "production." We "breed" animals for the sole purpose of exploiting and slaughtering them.
http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org...tpatterson.pdf

By the way, even backyard farmers usually get their chickens from factory farms (hatcheries). Baby chicks are shipped live in the mail like any other package, and if any chicks die in the process, they'll ship you some more.

Though I am vegan, I don't think that ALL consumption of eggs is non-vegan/exploitative. But I do think that commercial consumption of eggs is objectionable when it's not necessary. There may be a small portion of the population that actually needs animal protein, and for them I would approve of egg-consumption, but I still hope that it would not be commercially-obtained. Using eggs just because you're too uncreative to bake vegan pancakes is silly. The reality is that there will always be factory farms if people continue to consume animal products at the rate we do. Getting your eggs from a local source where the animals are treated fairly well is a step up on the individual level, but that is not sustainable across the population. If everyone replaced factory-farmed eggs with eggs from truly (and not just commercially) free-ranged eggs, then we would just end up with factory farms all over again because there's no way that small farms can produce eggs at the same rate. In the U.S., 97% of farms are small, family-owned businesses, but 99% of animal products consumed here come from factory farms. In the news, you may read about this great free-range "Angus beef" farm.......... but, interestingly, it's always the same farm and same family, and they raise about 40 cows at a time on that farm.

[Aleksander Krstic]

Originally Posted by Cochonette

I don't think that Steve's article is very effective because people are too immature and care too little about the issue to begin with. I'm not attempting to equate people exactly to Nazis here, but if we were to tell the Nazis they were the AntiChrist, I don't think they'd care anymore than they did before. People who just don't care whatsoever aren't going to care more because you tell them the Devil would do the same thing they're doing: They simply don't care. The Nazis cared about "Germans" and were convinced that Jews didn't matter. So the question is how do you get them to understand that Jews matter? How do you get meat-eaters to understand that animals matter? And humans and other species are not exactly the same experientially, so the solution isn't going to be exactly the same.

He's not trying to convience you into anything, he's just trying to get an emotional reaction from you with the title and the video.