Computer virus sent to UC-Berkeley vivisector Ralph Freeman

Without commenting on the methods promoted here, or in any way criticizing the people involved in these actions in defense of animals, I'm wondering why only the the vivisection issue motivates people to break the mental chains of the non-violence dogma, while other very important issues, like imperialist mass murder and ecocide, or even the massive brutal slaughter of sentient animals like pigs and cows in so-called "meat-packing" plants, don't.

"while other very important issues, like imperialist mass murder and ecocide, or even the massive brutal slaughter of sentient animals like pigs and cows in so-called "meat-packing" plants, don't."

If there's something you want to happen, then make it happen. I don't agree that it's at all true that no one opposing mass murder and ecocide have taken direct action. This too happens daily.

Also, there are daily actions against all animal murder industries, not just vivisection, check out http://directaction.info for more on that.

"Without commenting on the methods promoted here, or in any way criticizing the people involved in these actions in defense of animals, I'm wondering why only the the vivisection issue motivates people to break the mental chains of the non-violence dogma, while other very important issues, like imperialist mass murder and ecocide, or even the massive brutal slaughter of sentient animals like pigs and cows in so-called "meat-packing" plants, don't."

a) Why not instead acting against humans killing other humans?
Humans are mututally choosing the activity? Don't know if that's their reason, but it is a major distinction. It is extremely rare we have group A of humans mass murdering group B of humans where the latter are entirely pacifists.

b) Why not ecocide?
Because the environament is not a living BEING. The animal rights/welfare folks are not necessarly "environmental" (though some of them are). On some issues they are on opositie sides from the "environmentals".

c) Meat eating?
Because they are hopelessly outnumbered. Because if they attack the extrememly large number of humans who eat meat these will strike back and destroy them. By and large the animal rights/welfare folks ARE for miliant vegetarianism but for tactical reasons limit their actions to "softer targets" that are less well defended.

It's like something I saw on another list. Throw paint on a society lady wearing furs you might escape. Throw paint on a biker wearing squirrel tails and you might need dentures and piss blood for a while.

NOTE -- simple minded title validity checker lacks process to check for "overly short" titles being WORDS and hence proper "headlines" all by themsleves. The classic case is "War!"

I know you are feeling pretty hardcore right now, but you're not. Your pathetic little trojan will likely come to naught. I think I've emailed you before. Asked you why you thought micro-electrode recording from an animals brain was torture when there are no pain receptors in the brain and the scalp was anesthetized. I got not response. That could be simply because you know nothing of the science you have defined as evil. It could also be that you desperately need to feel powerful and radical and that scientists doing research at an open institution simply make a an easy target...like picking on the chubby kid in 1st grade. Punching him just to watch his fat jump...to make yourself feel big...maybe forget how dad or big brother pushed you around at home...

People like you are why no one in the mainstream is impressed by direct action anymore. You make us all seem like a a bunch of uneducated, luddite yahoos with vitamin B deficiencies. That you are marginally better than those narcissistic showboating assholes that camped in the campus trees for a year I will grant you, but that only makes you more damaging. While those tree sitting dimwits were mostly looked upon as arguing over nothing by anyone in the mainstream, you guys have picked a real issue, one that should be discussed and examined by society. Yet every time you do something retarded like this, you push real dialogue further and further from the realm of the possible.

Thanks for ruining it for everyone else just so you can feel hardcore.

Jerks.

So then if actions such as this set back the cause, as you posit, then what exactly is so effective? What gets UC to take note and diminish their use of animals, to stop expanding their use of animals with new facilities all across California?

Hey "by me". A good first step would be to learn exactly what is being done at these labs. Vivisection is not a blanket term, it's specific operation. Many labs do non-lethal surgery on anesthetized animals which may not be the same as letting them run around free but is certainly not the same as victorian era vivisection. Many of the UC berkeley labs in particular go out of there way to find ways to use animals less and to use them as painlessly as possible; many other institutions don't even bother with that.

You really want to change things? Learn enough about what you're fighting to make sure you only take direct actions against the truly bad. Even better, go earn a degree in a science and come up with a solution that eliminates the need to use animals in the ways that are bothering you. It's not as romantic as being a masked, midnight vigilante for the animals, but it's much more likely to get something done. If, that is, getting something done is your aim rather than ego stroking and providing yourself with something to belong to (and I'm using the general "your" there, not specifically singling out anyone).

All research can be read on Pubmed. And for the record, the Freeman lab performs experiments that end in death on kittens and cats. So nothing untrue was said in this communique by the hacker group. And, if you don't agree that it's psychologically torture to subject a being to a life in a laboratory, where holes are drilled into the animals skulls and electrodes inserted, then there's probably nothing to talk about. It would absolutely be considered torture by anyone if done to a human being, so why not for a non-human primate, or a cat? All of these creatures have basic self-awareness.

That's sometimes pretty tough to do. These schools don't necessarily run around making color pamplets or videos to distribute to the public on the exact nature of the experiments they are doing on live animals. They know it's disturbing and release as little info as they can get away with.

It's undercovers who get into these facilities and secretly record what is going on that really gets the story out there. If the schools catch these undercovers, they prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Shoot, they can use their police force statewide (off campus) to go after anyone they want on the flimsiest of premises -- UC police actually have that authority, with any compliant judge signing on. They raided several groups that shared space at the Long Haul because supposedly someone sent an intimidating email from there, but I'd bet that no charges ever come from that raid as it's really more of a fishing expedition against opponents of animal research and their allies.

UC is currently expanding several animal facilities across the state, so it's hard to buy your claim that they are so noble in working to reduce the use of animals.

And everyone who abhors the exploitation of animals becoming a scientist is hardly a solution. Basically, you got nothing to offer, as I suspected when I challenged you to name an alternative.

Look, I wasn't talking about becoming a "mole" in a lab, I was talking about actually becoming a scientist or someone involved in the ethics committees at institutions such as UC in order to effect change. I know that may be less romantic and exciting (not to mention difficult) than being a direct action ninja, but it's the only way to achieve your goals.

I'm sure everyone here has pretty progressive views about the stuff going on in Iraq and Palestine.
I'm sure you're disgusted by the fact that US and Israeli officials seem unnable to learn the lesson that there is no military solution to those conflicts that will ever be satisfactory to any side. You h ave a similar situation here. There are no actions you can take that will cause UC or any other institution to stop all animal based research. You could raise the Berkeley and UCLA campuses to the ground and achieve nothing but lenghty jail sentence when the FBI caught up with you. Taking on a leviathan of such proportions is a tak impossibly more difficult than going through school (science or law) and actually coming to the table with credentials. Of course, I've already stated my theory as to why more animal liberation folks don't do this; it's much easier and cooler to be a radical activist and pretend you are getting something done other than giving each other philosophical tug-jobs.

If you really care about the animals, you cannot take this all or nothing approach that broaches no compromise. Why? Because you will not stop the suffering of animals. I know it's hard to believe, but many scientists have issues about using animals too and many do try their best to minimize the suffering of animals. Again, procedures like recording from neurons in the brain can be done with a minimal amount of discomfort (and yes, I would undergo that procedure. It's done all the time in neurosurgery). So let me ask you: If an animal could be used in a lab in such a way that it had room to run around, felt no more pain than a house pet but had to undergoe invasive brain surgery and be euthanized before it died of natural causes, would this be acceptable to your sensiblities? Personally, I think that such a situation is the ideal all animal research labs should strive for and it's a situation that is better than what many famr animals must endure. If that is acceptable to you, then stop sending viruses and planting bombs and get seriousl involved. There are LOT'S of people at scientific institutions that share that vision and would love to animals used as little and as painlessly as possible.

If on the other hand you will accept no use of animals (and I might ask also, and what point on the phylogenetic tree does empathy begin? Are you seekign liberation for C. Elegans worms and drosophila flys?) at all, what can you do? Not much unfortunately. This is one case where direct action of the sort described in the orginal post is just not going to work. Defending old growth forest and applacian mountain tops? Sure. Putting the breaks on a centuries old institution that has given mankind basically everything good (as well as some bad) since the dark ages? You have no chance. Worse, as I pointed out before, you make it harder for those willing to actually get involved in legal, above the table negotiations; the people who are actually working and getting things done.

Let me lay out a hypothetical scenario. One person, just one person amongst all the direct action animal rights people out there decides to get a PhD in neuroscience. Let's say they put in the work and get their degree without doing any animal experiments at all (this can in fact be done). Let's say they do post doctoral work and then get a professorship somewhere, all without using animal models. Let's say they develop a reputation as a very good and thorough scientist. Now, let's say that person address a large gathering of colleagues, telling them their feelings about animal testing and proposing altertnative research methods, perhaps based on their (the hypothetical activist turned scientist) own work. Now, how much more do you think that person could get done than people who send labs viruses and show over and over again that they don't really understand the procedures they are attacking as inhumane?

Direct action is the wrong tool for this job. The right tools is informed dialogue based on trainging and credentials recognized by the people you are trying to pursuade. I know, I know. That sounds boring, tedious or like selling out..but it's the only way you'll get what you want.

"People like you are why no one in the mainstream is impressed by direct action anymore."

Indeed, the various agencies populated by grown men who can pretend they are in Iraq and wear black jackets with letters on the back as part of an "anti-terrorist" group, are thrilled to see these posts.

These make their day.

They can sit in camo outfits or adorned with badges and IDs around their necks in rooms full of computers and use the tax money that comes out of the paychecks of anarchists working in Starbucks and Peets to figure out where the animals rights nuts are so they can protect society from their lunatic rage.

It's also a *great* excuse to go raid computers in the early hours of the morning!

It's amazing how the people who apparently are defending animals are actually, single-handedly: 1) making the California Anti-terrorism Task Force a "worthwhile" to the public, 2) paying the paychecks of grown men pretending to be in Iraq with each hour at Starbucks or Peets, and, 3) creating the perfect rationale for such men to raid tiny, ancient, run-down activist community spaces in order to take the offending computers away.

Beautiful!!