Note: The following article is purely theoretical in nature. We do not advocate any illegal activity.
People sometimes remark that vegans care about animals more than people. To some extent, this is true. I certainly care about some animals more than I care about some people. Consider this quote from Savitri Devi:
‘A ‘civilization’ that makes such a ridiculous fuss about alleged ‘war crimes’ – acts of violence against the actual or potential enemies of one’s cause – and tolerates slaughterhouses and vivisection laboratories, and circuses and the fur industry (infliction of pain upon creatures that can never be for or against any cause), does not deserve to live.’
People always talk about how evil it is to take a life, and yet they continue to slaughter animals for their products. This is the height of hypocrisy. How can it be right to kill a being that is completely innocent, and has never harmed you in any way, but heinously evil to kill someone you do not like? Even killing someone for looking at you the wrong way is less evil than killing an animal that has done nothing.
The reason I do not kill people I dislike is that if I do, I will go to jail. I know how people would react to this sentiment. ‘There are some people you want dead? You’re evil!’ But I reiterate – this is hypocrisy and nonsense. If it is OK to kill an animal, who has done nothing to me, without feeling guilt, then why would I feel guilty about killing someone I actually dislike? (I am not saying, by the way, that we should kill people just because we dislike them. I am just pointing out the absurdity of those who kill beings they have nothing against claiming it is less evil.)
Likewise, cannibalising our enemies is arguably preferable to eating the innocent (and it would reduce the demand for animal products!), although actually I recommend against cannibalism because the consumption of one’s enemies is primarily used by the leaders of primitive Gentile tribes as a status symbol.
Figure 1: Pigs
Figure 2: Swine
‘According to Jewish-controlled psychology, I’m a psychopath. If I had my way, I’d get rid of these hunters who collect trophies of animal heads, and I’d have such a cold psychopath face while doing so.’ – AryanAim
Psychology also teaches that people who kill other humans are deeply flawed, but does not make any judgements against those who kill animals. This is because psychology is actually nothing but a Jewish tool for promoting the values they think people should believe in by claiming that the validity of these values has been ‘scientifically proven’.
Psychology would declare a psychopath anyone who wants to exterminate those who deceive, exploit, are arrogant, are cruel etc., but again I reiterate: if it is OK to kill an animal without feeling guilty, why should you feel guilty about killing someone who actually makes you angry?
Psychologists are completely incorrect. These feelings are normal (at least to those who are sensitive enough to evil to actually care), not pathological. Consider that humans have developed the idea that God will punish the wicked in Hell forever. At its best, this teaching is that God’s judgement is objective and not necessarily in line with the opinions of organised religion or society, which is comforting because it means that even if everyone else (including the Church) thinks you are wrong and God will punish you, if you know you are right then you know that He will not. People believe in this teaching because they want to see justice done – and not only against the actively evil, but also against those who get in the way of attempts to make the world a better place (by passively accepting evil, for example, or obnoxiously refusing to question the lies and attitudes the forces of evil are indoctrinating them into believing in.) It may seem harsh to kill people just for mocking our beliefs or refusing to listen to us (and I would not actually do it), but again – the point is that it is still less evil than killing an animal that has done nothing!
People who believe in Hell have the luxury of saying that it is wrong for us to take justice into our own hands, but what if they are wrong about Hell? Would they at least admit that if there is no Hell, it would be OK to take justice into our own hands and exterminate the guilty? What we propose is actually much less severe than this, and much less severe than the idea of an eternal Hell that has historically been a part of Western civilization.