Couldn't agree more, racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and animal abuse naturally go hand in hand, I for one dislike any type of prejudice and hate, always have done always will do.

The blue one?

 http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/archive/2007/11/19/Local+news+(p_news_local)/1842118.Restaurant_faces_foie_gras_protest/

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism

Into AR as well.

Another group espousing its own brand of neo-nazi animal rights is the Animal Support Group, an off-shoot of the fascist International Third Position, which is headed by the convicted Italian terrorist Roberto Fiore. The ASG publishes a pamphlet named Freedom Fighter, the banner of which is emblazoned with a masked activist cradling a rescued dog opposite the flag of St George. The publication extensively details its battle with the business Shamrock, which imports primates for experimentation.

The group, which shares a secure mail box address with a sister group entitled Englander 88, has helped organise demonstrations at Shamrock's West Sussex site and participated in hunt saboteur activity in Kent. Its activists revel in the knowledge that by remaining undercover they are able to mingle freely with other animal rights demonstrators who often harbour political views varying from liberal to hard Left.

A third group, the notoriously violent British Movement, also supports animal rights issues. Its literature states: "Our new moral code will not allow scientists, business men and politicians alike playing God in the name of curiosity, monetary gain or notoriety."

Meanwhile, most animal rights groups are unaware of the far-Right element in their midst. Michelle Thew, chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said that her organisation banned members from expressing racist or fascist views.

She said: "I'm surprised and alarmed to learn that these groups are involved in animal rights because you would think that most anti-vivisectionists would also condemn human oppression out of compassion.

Hitler was not a vegetarian, you cannot practice some form, you either are or your'e not. He was prescribed a veggie diet by his Physician due to flatulance, he was also injected with bulls testosterone, but Hitler loved bavarian sausages. He never kept to his diet.

Hitler being a vegetarian is a common misconception!!

Has your Dr prescribed you a veggie diet for your flatulance wiki?

Sociologists Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax wrote a very interesting article (Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992) that describes the familiar-sounding rhetoric that leading Nazis used to support vegetarianism. For example:

"On one romantic date, his female companion ordered sausage, at which Hitler looked disgusted and said: 'Go ahead and have it, but I don't understand why you want it. I didn't think you wanted to devour a corpse... the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!'"

This is a strange declaration for a man who some claim, without direct evidence, to have a preference for sausage.

To be found all over the net

Facts about: What Sort of [So-Called] Vegetarian was Hitler?

Donal O'Driscoll, Oct 1998

For those fighting for the abolition of vivisection it is not uncommon to be labeled as Nazis by its defenders in their efforts to discredit with ad hominem attacks when their science fails them. This is not simply a question of basic insult.

His ugly head continually rises as the pro-vivisection have found themselves a bit of twentieth century mythology of sufficient impact to latch onto. What it boils down to is that the Nazi Party of Hitler's German claimed to respect animal rights and therefore all animal rights activists must be of the same calibre.

The flaw in this argument is apparent to all who pause for a minute to think about the logic behind it. The same logic would have us branding as fascist anyone with blue eyes and blond hair.

Rather than go into detail as to the various logical flaws of this stand point - odd for men and women of science where logic is the basis of their work, we are going to concentrate on the Nazis themselves and see how far the claims made by the pro-vivisectionists for them are actually true. This roughly divides into two issues: the extent and nature of vivisection in Nazi Germany and the laws controlling the use of animals in their science and society; and what sort of vegetarian was Hitler. The former has already been explored elsewhere in the essays and work of Roberta Kalechofsky (Founder of Jews for Animal Rights) [7] and Jeremy Caudle.

It is the latter we shall concentrate on in this article since there seems to be as much confusion among those fighting vivisection as those proposing it. Though some would argue that we can not separate Hitler's opinion on vivisection and vegetarianism, this article is being constructed from the point of view of criticisms leveled at the modern anti-vivisection and vegetarianism movements which are sufficiently distinct to make this separation necessary to keep the issues at stake clear. For those who say that Hitler was a supporter of animal rights as defined in the modern language of Singer and Regan, then the quick answer is that in this philosophy there is no room for a person who tests out his cyanide pill on his pet dog.

On of the first things we must be careful not to do is to dismiss the claims out of hand immediately. If we are to be strong as a movement we must be able to defeat our detractors at their own game and take them on with their standards.

If we do this and succeed then we have made them look foolish; not doing this leaves us open to the perennial accusation of simply being ignorant cranks.

Hiding from the fact Hitler claimed to be vegetarian is not going to do any good. What we need to do is to show how this supposed vegetarianism was nothing more than a claim, in part promoted by the Nazi spin doctors, in part a weak man deluding himself.

The answer to the "accusation" that Hitler was a vegetarian, is that those who make this claim are as much victims of the man as those who believed in his lies at the time. Hindsight has given us the advantage to see through his other claims and posturing so why should we fall for this one as well.

We will start with the question as to why Hitler espoused vegetarianism then discuss how good a vegetarian he was. What seems to accepted through out the various sources and historians that this claim first surfaces in or before the year 1931. After this we get into the principle region of confusion as there seemingly two schools of thought.

The first is that Hitler was told to go vegetarian on the advice of his doctors.

In the years of the Weimar Republic which governed Germany following World War I until the Nazis took power, vegetarianism was seen as a health fad for which much good was claimed. In particular it was espoused by one of Hitler's heroes,

the composer Wagner. Wagner believed that vegetarianism promoted vitality, long life and physical fitness, all things important to Hitler (though not practised by) and which he was to attribute to vegetarianism. Hitler also had a chronic stomach condition which was to trouble him for the majority of his life.

Connected with this was a flatulence problem. He believed that a diet of vegetables helped to settle his stomach and remove the odors of the latter.

The second is that Hitler went vegetarian as a result of the death of his niece Geli in 1931. Geli, full name Angela Raubal, was the daughter of Hitler's step-sister who was acting as his housekeeper from 1929. Between 1929 and 1931 Hitler became very attached to Geli, forming a possessive and jealous relationship over her that developed into an infatuation. His feeling for her does not appear to have been reciprocated and in September 1938 she shot herself.

There are several theories around her death and some mystery remains due to lack of direct evidence more than anything else, however the important issue here is that it had a very profound effect on Hitler. For the rest of his life he had a photo of her in his room which flowers were placed in front of every year on the anniversaries of her birth and her death. Many statements as to Hitler's vegetarianism are derived from this period. Indeed the diaries of one of his secretaries states that it was as a result of Geli's death that he turned vegetarian.

So which of the above view points are correct? The first thing to note that his doctors recommended that he went vegetarian but he did not seem to follow their advice more than intermittently. However, the idea was planted in his mind and the death of his niece, which we know made a profound and lasting shock on him.

His vegetarianism, or rather his definition of it, seems to have become stronger after the death of Geli Raubal. Up until then vegetarianism was associated with his feeling better from his stomach problems and other conditions, though there was some evidence that there was some cross pollination of the idea of meat being bad for him with the idea of death, another very important subject in his life was already occurring in the early 1920's, viz during his relationship with Mimi Reiter [2].

However, it was not until Geli's death, triggering a much more pronounced fixation with death did he start to fully link it with his own health which in turn, following doctors and Wagner, he linked with vegetarianism. The result is now an abhorrence of meat and the real espousal of vegetarianism as a way of life, as can be so readily found in the diaries of Goebbels. That it is the death of Geli which brought about this shift of position, from a health fad to a full blown way of life is testified to in the diaries of his secretaries at the time and the well known comment to Goering that he refused to eat a piece of ham on the grounds it reminded him of a corpse. This position has been taken by a number of historians including Albert Speer, Robert Payne and John Toland.

Hitler's friend, Frau Hess, is given in Toland as having said that he never ate meat after Geli's death except liver dumplings.

So on the face of it the evidence so far does seem to support the ascertain that Hitler was a vegetarian. However, we still have to discuss how well he carried it out. Are we going to simply accept the ideal of the aestic leader, favoured by Goebbels [3], of which the vegetarianism was wound in to promote further comparisons with Ghandi? As with much in his life in this too he was a chronic liar both to himself and others [2]. And not even consistently at that.

Pre 1931 we have the situation familiar to many of us - we hear and appreciate the doctors advice but in the face of giving up a pleasure we do not necessarily follow it. This holds equally true of Hitler. His love of certain meat, in particular liver dumplings and Bavarian sausages [8] is well known and he found it hard to give up meat altogether. It mostly depended on how much trouble he was receiving from his stomach as to how seriously he took the vegetarian diet.

In 1931 and after, Hitler was already well on his way to power but in the words of the historian David Irving: "By 1936 Hitler was an extremely cranky vegetarian" and even his idea of what a vegetarian seems to deviate quite significantly from what we currently take the word to mean. In the late 1930's we have the testimony of a hotel chef in Hamburg called Dione Lucas saying that Hitler's favourate dish was stuffed and roasted baby pigeon [4]. In 1937 there was an article in the New York Times on Hitler where he is described as a vegetarian who loved ham and caviar!! [7]

It is important to point out here that there are documented cased where he ordered his chef to prepare vegetarian dishes [5], but as pointed out above this can be regarded as him reacting to increased stomach trouble at the time. Looking closer at this statement it is odd that for such a powerful figure that he would have to specifically order vegetarian dishes, when if he was such a professed vegetarian this should be taken as a matter of course.

This all fits in with the details given in the "The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler" by Leonard and Renate Heston [6], which chronicles his stomach aliments and the various food explorations that he tried to settle it. The overall picture is that he was more concerned about his own mortality and pain, but when he felt good he was not adverse to delving back into meat. Meanwhile, he was keeping up the facade of a vegetarian diet to his friends as is attested in Goebbels diaries [1], the latter fulling believing Hitler's sermonizing on the subject.

For a person who manage to stamp so much of himself on the country he ruled at the time, there is no evidence that he tried to do the same with vegetarianism, yet he enforced other stringent health measures including anti-smoking laws.

Indeed the opposite seems to have been the case if the treatment of the various vegetarian societies are anything to go by. Though individual vegetarians were not persecuted, their societies were being forced to leave the International Vegetarian Union and subjected to Gestapo raids and stringent conditions.

So what are we left with? Accepting that Hitler was a proclaimed vegetarian we get a very poor impression of what that actually meant. Certainly by our standards he would he would not rank as one. At best he appears as a hypocrite, his problems not medical but seated much deeper in his psyche, a psyche with a very nasty inferiority complex and mendacious tendencies. His reasons for his belief were based on health, not moral, grounds. In fact I would go so far as to say that Hitler's vegetarianism is nothing more than a label he adopted to suite himself. Those who use the two words together are guilty of falling foul of Hitler's own propaganda. In their glee they seize on the fact that the words can be used in the same sentence with out understanding the context in which they are given.

The answer to the "accusation" that Hitler was a vegetarian, is to ask do they believe liver dumplings, caviar and ham to be vegetarian; are they going to listen to a liar who could not even follow his own teachings?

References

[1] "The Goebbels Diaries 1939-41", translated by Fred Taylor, 1982

[2] "The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler', Robert Waite, 1977

[3] "Life and Death of Adolf Hitler", Robert Payne, 1973

[4] "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook", Dione Lucas

[5] "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny", Alan Bullock, 1994

[6] "The Medical Casebook of Adolf Hitler", Leonard & Renate Heston, 1979

[7] "Hitler and Vegetarianism", Roberta Kalechofsky,  http://www.micahbooks.com/

[8] "Adolf Hitler", John Toland, 1976

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jez Caudle and JP Goodwin for their help researching this article.

Personally I do not care if he was or wasn't a vegetarian but if its not true its not true, I know of a vivisector who is vegan...The truth is that Hitler loved meat, and especially game birds. His favorite dish was stuffed and roasted squab (baby pigeon). He also enjoyed rich cakes and pastries.

When he was in his forties, he began to suffer from severe stomach cramps. These pains would often come on after a meal, or sometimes during it. He usually had to leave the table, and at times the pain incapacitated him for several hours.

Although he was offered plenty of advice on how to deal with these pains, he refused to undergo a proper medical examination. Instead, he attempted to treat himself, by applying an elimination diet. He progressively eliminated the rich foods that he loved, then went on to exclude meat. He also experimented with the elimination of dairy products.

At times, the regime appeared to work. But he would occasionally relapse and start to eat meat again, at which point the cramps return. He continued in this way until his death.

There is some suggestion though that his Physician advised him also to go veggie!!

Hitler also banned all vegetarian organsiations in Nazi Germany!

"I know of a vivisector who is vegan"

No you don't! This pervert may consume a diet free from animal products but they are not vegan. You cannot be a vegan vivisector as all animal abuse is unvegan. As for Hitler, definitely not a veggie and then there was his pal Heinrich Himmler...a chicken farmer.

From the same Wikipedia article about Hitler's alleged vegetarianism (and the article makes it clear it is an allegation, not a fact - as a side note, to "Wiki", quoting something like Wikipedia as a source is rather in poor taste and just plain uneducated):

Author Rynn Berry[15], a vegetarian and animal right advocate, maintains that although Hitler reduced the amount of meat in his diet, he never stopped eating meat completely for any significant length of time. Berry argues that many historians use the term 'vegetarian' incorrectly to describe someone who simply reduced their meat consumption.[3][16]

In 1991, upon the death of Isaac Bashevis Singer, criticism over the omission of Singer's vegetarianism in his obituary led to a debate regarding Hitler's alleged vegetarianism in the letters page of the New York Times. Letter writer Carol Jochnowitz wrote: "On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'"[17]

Author Robert Payne, in his biography of Hitler, The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler (Praeger, 1973) theorizes that the image of Hitler as a vegetarian ascetic was deliberately fostered by Joseph Goebbels:

"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress....His asceticism was a fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self control, the distance that separated him from other men....In fact, he was remarkably self indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic. His cook, an enormously fat man named Willy Kannenberg, produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar...." (p. 346)[18]

The April 14, 1996, Sunday magazine edition of The New York Times, includes this description of Hitler's diet in an article first published on May 30, 1937, 'At Home With The Führer.' "'It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar ..."[19]

 http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html

From John Robbins' Food Revolution:

Robert Payne is widely considered to be Hitler's definitive biographer. In his book, Hitler: The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler, Payne says that Hitler's "vegetarianism" was a "legend" and a "fiction" invented by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. According to Payne:

"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun… His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic." (more...)


From the Toronto Vegetarian Association:

While it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, et al, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured meats. Even Spencer says that Hitler was a vegetarian from only 1931 on: "It would be true to say that up to 1931, he preferred a vegetarian diet, but on some occasions would deviate from it." He committed suicide in the bunker when he was 56 in 1945; that would have given him 14 years as a vegetarian, but we have the testimony to the contrary of the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often."
From "The Animals' Agenda"
1996 issue, attributed to Roberta Kalechofsky

In their efforts to discredit animal rights activists, supporters of animal research periodically proclaim to the media that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and that the Nazis did not engage in animal research.

The implication is that these 'revelations' suggest a sinister similarity between Nazis and animal rights 'zealots' and serve as a warning that animal advocates have an anti-human agenda.

But the real story about Hitler and the Nazis is miles from the myth. One legitimate response to such claims is that it doesn't matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian; as Peter Singer said, "The fact that Hitler had a nose doesn't mean we're going to cut our noses off."

Biographical material about Hitler suggests a contradictoriness in reports about his diet. He is often described as a vegetarian who nevertheless had a special fondness for sausages and caviar, and sometimes ham. One of his biographers, Robert Payne ("The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler) took exception to the view of Hitler as an ascetic, and said it was deliberately fostered by the Nazis to project an image of Hitler as pure and dedicated.

Wrote Payne: "Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he have anything to do with women.

"Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages, and kept a mistress... "His asceticism was a fiction invented by (Nazi propagandist Joseph) Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men..." Biographer John Toland ("Adolf Hitler"), describes Hitler's early student diet as consisting of "milk, sausage, and bread."

Moreover, Hitler never promoted vegetarianism as a public policy for either health or moral reasons. His lack of policies and public support for vegetarianism is significant in a leader who rigorously enforced other health policies, such as anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation, and pregnancy and birthing measures for women.

The rumor that the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection law is also filled with contradictions. No such law was passed, although the Nazis reported that such a law existed. The Nazis allegedly passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933.

"Lancet," the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors.

The evidence of Nazi experiments on animals is overwhelming. In "The Dark Face of Science," author John Vyvyan summed it up correctly:

"The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: all were in continuation of or complementary to, experiments on animals. "In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence, and at Buchenvald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme."

It is important that the facts be known so that the myths about Hitler and the Nazis cannot be used against the animal rights and vegetarian movements.

Animal rights advocates should not let these false claims appear in the media unchallenged. The record must be set straight.

The article is well written however it gets one item wrong. It claims teh Met is responsible for SHACwatch. This is not the case. SHACwatch is run by a private security company formed by one particular Walter Mitty character.

As I understand it Hitler was rather partial to certain sausages, meat ones.Anyway Hitler did not torture and kill millions of people all by himself he had the SS, the Gestapo, Himmler, Goebells etc etc, as far as I know none of them were vegetarians. Regardless animal liberation philosophy has at its very centre an acceptance that all humans are equal and that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are abominations thus it is wrong to discriminate on terms of species as well. It is nonsensical for anyone calling themselves an animal liberationist to believe in a master race. It is sentience ,or as I heard once from Dr Richard Ryder, painience the capacity to suffer that should govern how we morally treat another living creature, we should endeavour to do no harm against those who our actions may cause damage an exception being self defence. This is severely at odds with fascism which let us remember would come down very hard against same sex relationships, women, any human who is not obviously caucasian, anyone who has a religious belief other than christianity, anyone who does not think that fascists are great, anyone who thinks they are great but thinks they might have gone a bit too far.
We do not want fascists, we do not support fascists and when we find fascists they are ostracised.

I agree and stand corrected!

The question isn't really about whether fascists ARE (at the present moment) existing within the AR movement. The questions are about "what if there were" (how to respond) and you can see from some of the comments that some are so troubled by the problems that would arise that they choose to deny the possibility.

This is just a special case example of the general problem "how do I respond if an ally in fight X is my enemy in fight Y?" For some of us the notion that this could be and we would have to somehow cope is too frightening to bear. Instead we come up with all sorts of (spurious) reasons why the situation could never come to pass, why we would never be faced with the hard choices involved.

Grow up! Real life is complicated, choices can be hard, just the way it is.

NOTE: For somebody my age this present association between AR and/or environmentalism and "the left" has not always been around. How many of you have heard of MOVE? (small radical BLACK group in Philadelphia, cops dropped a bomb on their house, suvivors are still in jail). Well let me tell you that back then all the other Black radical groups and all the other "left" groups thought these folks were WEIRD to be concerned about animals.

FUCK?! Really! Im a vegan/Animal rights activist and antifash. Most a/r folk are antifash from my experience. Whear i live you will often find as massive crossover with activist doing anarchist,antifash and animal rights demonstrations and campaigns. Humans are animals to after all. Im very pleased to see a new generation of anarcho vegan punks fighting all opression. And lastly...all this talk about hittler beinig veggie...who cares!

@RealSource: "SHACwatch is run by a private security company..."

I run a website and after a comment was posted on SHACwatch linking to a specific page on it, the first visitor was from one of the internet gateways used by people in government: gateway-NNN.energis.gsi.gov.uk. The browser identifier was quite interesting too, "Meridio for Excel 4.4.727"

Maybe someone knows which areas of government use these particular gateways - is it just central government or things like local government, police, hospitals and schools etc. too? And is this Meridio thing specific to a particular area of government?

I think this is fairly conclusive proof that SHACwatch is run from someone inside the state, either with their explicit permission or not.

I believe comments from SHACwatch are moderated before appearing on the site, so it's fairly certain to be the main person behind it.

There were a few other connections from other people soon after - I assume these are SHACwatch groupies. One was a home broadband connection and another from Belgium.

No one is denying that occasionally racists or fascists try to join the animal rights movement, just like any other movement. It should be fairly clear from all the comments that:

a) they are kicked out pretty quickly once their views are found out, and
b) animal abusers like to exaggerate the problem in order to smear animal rights.

MOVE is an interesting point though. Although they were pretty much anarchist animal rights supporters, I think they had some unusual (for the left) views on things like abortion and sexuality.

Abortion is another divisive thing in many movements, there are many genuine and generally left-leaning people who are against abortion. Should they be kicked out of progressive movements, or can we live with that difference?

Still has AR connections.

"a) they are kicked out pretty quickly once their views are found out, and ..."

But that isn't "the problem" as I see it. Of course this or that affinity group can exclude whomever they wish to. But we aren't talking about whether or not ANYBODY can be "card carrying members" of an organization. Not that sort of "organization" anyway. We are talking about people we may need to define BY THEIR ACTIONS or exclude, in spite of those actions, based on other affiliations they might have.

What I am seeing in this discussion is that some people are so disturbed by the thought of having to face thee sorts of hard choices that they refuse to accept the reality that they might be. In other words, they deny the possibility of some %(@#(* fascist BEING (also) involved with AR. Give us all sorts of reasons why they think "it couldn't be so" in spite of the clear historical precedent, current existence in other places, etc.

So back to "a" above. What do you mean by "kick them out"? How do you stop them from carrying out their own AR actions? Do you inform on them? Do you refuse to announce their actions? Do you refuse them support if caught?

I don't think you can stop someone taking action on there own. If they try and join a local group then they will be told to leave. But yes if a fash is caught for AR direct actions then they should get no prisoner support from the ALFSG.

No one is saying fash has never or will never try and join AR groups or do AR actions. What we are saying is we will not work alongside them or provide them with any support. They are not welcome.

Of course you can't stop fascists doing animal rights actions on their own or with other fascists. But that applies to any movement. Anti-fascists can't stop paedophiles or animal abusers from doing anti-fascist stuff on their own either. The most any movement can do is make it clear that they aren't welcome in the general community.

and @antifa: "Robin Steele ... Still has AR connections."
This refers to this story about someone who seemed to be a police infiltrator for various groups including animal rights, and-fascists, and neo-Nazis:  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/03/365587.html?


Do you have more information about how Robin Steele still has AR connections?

I don't think that anyone believes that teenage Robin Steele is or was a "police infiltrator".

The mp3's that were used against him were obvious fakes. No one that has heard them believes they are real.

As for his links with AR, his brother is the leader of the West Yorkshire Animal Rights group and probable author of the original post

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2007/03/365802.html?c=on

Link to the article that has the MP3's available to download and listen to.

As I said before - they are obvious fakes, and very well done - listen to them, and if you really believe that Antifa can tap police phone lines then you just might believe that they are real.

For the rest of us, the MP3's are obvious fakes, and are no proof whatsoever.

This was the original article with the "evidence" against Robin Steele available to download:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2007/03/365802.html

The MP3's are obvious fakes.

Very successful amongst the "if you believe that then you will believe anything" brigade, and part of the reason why genuine AR activists have nothing to do with the WYARG , they seem to have a habit of ending up in disaster and custody.

"I don't think that anyone believes that teenage Robin Steele is or was a "police infiltrator".

The mp3's that were used against him were obvious fakes. No one that has heard them believes they are real.

As for his links with AR, his brother is the leader of the West Yorkshire Animal Rights group and probable author of the original post"


The mp3 recordings maybe or maybe not suspect, on the other hand, the pictures of Steele speak for themselves.

See, not impossible to face the reality that politics gets "messy". Now try asking the same sort of questions from the other direction. Assume a good antifa comrade is active on the wrong side of AR issues. Again don't insist "can't be so" but squarely face that could be so and decide.

There are no "wrong answers" to these questions. The only wrong is failure to face them. Wrong to keep pretending that as we attempt to build toward large scale social change that we will ever have unity, that we won't ALWAYS have to cope with those who are allies on only some of our issues. By facing these questions we learn which of our values are most important to us, values where we cannot compromise, and which of our values are secondary, sometimes to be sacrificed in the interest of furthering our more important values.

"As for his links with AR, his brother is the leader of the West Yorkshire Animal Rights group and probable author of the original post"

It's clear Robin Steele is a fascist cunt so let's hear it from his bro. If WYAR is to put out this statement then we need this point cleared up.

He may be fash, but the evidence against teenager Robin Steele for being a "Police Infiltrator" is pretty flimsy.

Antifa said, in a comment above, that the MP3's "may or may not be suspect" - actually there is no doubt about it, they ARE suspect, anyone with more than half a brain can tell that they are fake.

No matter what, no one in Leeds will touch either him or his brother with a barge pole, both of them seem to attract trouble like a magnet.

"He may be fash, but the evidence against teenager Robin Steele for being a "Police Infiltrator" is pretty flimsy.

Antifa said, in a comment above, that the MP3's "may or may not be suspect" - actually there is no doubt about it, they ARE suspect, anyone with more than half a brain can tell that they are fake."

Fuck off you cunt, this isn't about grassing it's about racist wankers! Who gives a flying fuck about the recordings, he posed in more than one photo dressed like scum. You don't seem very clued up to the fact his brother is still very much in the thick of animal rights and until I hear otherwise has a connection with his scum of a brother.

I think you were the only one that did not understand what everyone was saying regarding the fash, I think the position of everyone was clear. You raise a more interesting point when it is the other way round. Because animal rights is less widely accepted than anti-fascism some leeway must be given when it comes to speciesists in other movements. I think it goes without saying that all ARA's would work with meat eaters for example. But I think none of us would work with a vivisectionist and would like them to be rejected by anti-fascists as we reject fash. However I doubt they necessarily would as AR does not get the reciprocation it deserves.

The comments under the name of 'Antifa' are clearly from somebody not in the organisation and not clued up.

If they did, they would clearly know that R.S. has not been involved in fash organisations for over 2 years - common knowledge amongst antifascist circles in Yorkshire and indeed the country, the real Antifa will tell you i'm sure.

Secondly, you'd know that West Yorkshire animal rights is a non-hierarchical organisation based on anarchist principles and morals, so R.S's brother cannot be 'running it' as you put it. Also, the group is extremely strong and well-supported throughout the country so, again, more bullshit on your part...or should I say gibbon shit!

As for luke steele. He is an extremely well respected activist by those in Yorkshire political circles.

Get your facts right before posting or you'll just get owned...again!

So you confirm that Robin Steele still has a connnection with his brother, Luke Steele, which was what we all suspected in the first place.

Many people have had their doubts about Luke Steele for a long time, he has just got out of jail and all of a sudden, everyone is fighting each other,with stories flying around left right and centre, nice one Luke, you are serving your Police masters very well indeed.

The suspicion has been held for a long time that both the Steele brothers have been helping the Police.

Hopefully the cash they gain from grassing can go towards thier Mothers rent arrears.

"The comments under the name of 'Antifa' are clearly from somebody not in the organisation and not clued up.

If they did, they would clearly know that R.S. has not been involved in fash organisations for over 2 years - common knowledge amongst antifascist circles in Yorkshire and indeed the country, the real Antifa will tell you i'm sure.

Secondly, you'd know that West Yorkshire animal rights is a non-hierarchical organisation based on anarchist principles and morals, so R.S's brother cannot be 'running it' as you put it. Also, the group is extremely strong and well-supported throughout the country so, again, more bullshit on your part...or should I say gibbon shit!

As for luke steele. He is an extremely well respected activist by those in Yorkshire political circles.

Get your facts right before posting or you'll just get owned...again!"



I know many antifascists who are no longer involved in any organization but still have strong views, what's your point?

On your second point.
I didn't say he was running the ship and I don't give a rats arse if the group is supported country wide or not. The fact remains that Steeles brother plays a leading role in the group (any dick can see this) and as a respectful activist you claim why no public rebuke of his brothers actions? People are quick to mention others in the north who have been caught with their pants down so why leave Robin Steele out of the equation?

Too many dodgy fuckers in the animal rights movement.

Heh, that sounds like the brother from hell.

I'm sure there are more than a few trolls posting here from the state/fascists/animal abusers but how the fuck is someone supposed to be responsible for what other members of their family think or do!? All you can do is make it clear to them that they aren't welcome in animal rights.

I'm sure almost everyone has a bigoted elderly relative hidden away somewhere. Not quite the same as a neo-Nazi, but still it shows you can choose your friends but not your family.

In a number of recent animal rights cases NETCU and the old bill have posted things on indy to use in evidence to try and prove their 'case' which doesn't exist.

An activist getting out of prison then doing activism?! We can't be having that now can we?! Tut tut tut...

What will pearle think?

Wake up. SHACWATCH is an "activist" connected to and being fed by NETCU.

They are not the police, they accused Lynn of being agrass and "exposed" other "snitches from SHAC".

A deeply dangerous scumbag.....and not the police I'm afraid,

See the comment above "SHACwatch is run by someone involved with the state"

That's a fairly good indication that they are on the inside in some sense unless someone knows what other institutions use the .energis.gsi.gov.uk gateways.

That is, if you trust me to be genuine and not a troll, which you have no real reason to!

What makes you say they aren't linked to the state? Just because they incorrectly say people are grasses? That is a classic state disinformation tactic.

Interesting, I wonder if ARC or any other animal activist would sit down to dinner with their vivisecting brother? If not it would seem that a fascist brother is more welcome at the table in the animal rights world... Maybe the animal rights agenda is a higher priority than the antifascist agenda to the animal activist?

We can see this going in the same direction it always ends up when things don't go the way of the animal activist. Now we see a consented effort to derail the topic by accusing people who post of being trolls, NETCU or shacwatch.

The bottom line is that we have a post that was posted by the brother of a fascist scum who wants to make a public statement against fascists yet he leaves his fascist brother out of the equation.

It matters not who brought this up, it true what ever side says it!

White wash.

Well most of us in the animal rights world have meat-eaters in our family, and I guess a lot of us do sit down to dinner with them. Some will refuse to eat at a table where meat is served, and others don't. I know some vegans even cook meat for their non-vegan partners!

And I'm sure there are animal rights people with vivisectors or hunters in the family. So I don't think fascism would be treated differently to animal abuse - they are both strong differences of opinion on moral issues.

I've no idea how the people mentioned in this article get on with each other but this petty point-scoring seems like it might have an ulterior motive. Are you just a genuine anti-fascist or do you have some anti-AR agenda as well?

ARC posted.

"But I think none of us would work with a vivisectionist and would like them to be rejected by anti-fascists as we reject fash."


I would like animal activists to reject fash, it seems that not all are prepared so.

I would eat a meal with a family member if they were vivisectionists and probably if they were fash as well (although I doubt they would eat with me as I'm mixed race). I don't expect people to totally disown family members to show allegiance to a cause. However I would expect them to use any information gained from there family to aid the cause, if possible.

The fact an activist has a family member who is discriminatory does not make them a bad person.

I think you need to make your mind up, I for one think anti-fascism is more than just a cause. I wouldn't sit and eat with any member of my family if they were fascists and HAVE disowned my whole family for less. Haven't spoken to them in 25 years!

I guess their is compromise in the animal rights movement?

If you have not spoken to your family for over 25 years, then you really should do sometime soon.

They say that blood is thicker than water.

As life goes on, your family and especially your Mother will forgive you anything and always love you, they are the only people that will do this.

Get back in touch with your family..

I'm not in AR for personal disagreements but to help animals. First off being close to someone in the industry would be helpful in terms of inside info that is bound to come to light. Secondly me sitting and eating with someone has no baring on the animals. Additionally as a family member one is in a unique position to offer influence if the person shows signs of giving up their bigotry (unlikely but possible). Pick battles carefully based on outcome not on emotion.

Assuming this isn't just a wind-up, why have you disowned your family, Antifa? You said it was for less than fascism. Just interested, that's all.

I haven't looked at this myself but I'd suggest caution in investigating. GSI is short for Government Secure Intranet and there is enough good evidence these are genuine inter-government accounts that have been turning up in too many home computer firewall logs, often on a half-hourly basis.
Unless all these stories are planted and this is a huge pointless hoax then this is a PC trying to break into your PC, or whatever.

It seems to me that you make the rules up as you go along.

Vegan, none of your business.

So we are not going to get a statement from the north?

I'm not all that into 'rules' and laws and shit, I'm into what works.

Are you really telling me it would be better to shun a real genuine effective anti-fash because maybe on special family days she/he might eat a meal in the same room as a fascist (while making it clear to them they are 100% anti-fash), than accept his/her help?

If you want a comment from a particular group, why not email them?

Some links on the GSi, but nothing to say exactly which parts of the government use it:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Secure_Intranet
Government Secure intranet (GSi) is a UK government wide area network, whose main purpose is to enable connected organisations to communicate electronically and securely at low protective marking levels.

 http://www.ogc.gov.uk/contractsdatabase/list_all_contracts_375.asp
Contract Description
This enables public authorities to join the GSi, the UK secure IP managed network, and (a) exchange and share Restricted (and Confidential) information with other GSi community customers and other networks such as the CJX, MoD, NHS and EU networks and (b) more safely access the public Internet. Standard GSi services include wide area connections to customer sites, directory, mail relay, firewalls and anti-virus scanning. Other GSi services include anti-spam and anti-image scanning, application development and hosting, closed user groups, remote access for home or mobile workers and VOIP. Appropriately sponsored private sector companies may order GSi GSE services.

 http://dizzythinks.net/2008/07/remote-access-to-secure-intranet.html
...I was surprised to learn just how many people have remote access to the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) across Whitehall.

At DEFRA there are 2000 people accessing the GSI from their homes, in the Ministry of Justice it is 4000 (although they say the laptops are "encrypted" but they give no detail on what that actually means.

The Department for internetaional Development has 1788 people accessing the GSI from remote locations. Are they doing this abroad I wonder and what is the potential for intercept of senstive communications I wonder?

The Treasury has 564 people accessing the network remotely, whilst Cultrue, Media and Sports has 125. If the numbers are like this in just a few department I wonder how many potential leakage and access points there are, in total, to the Government's "Secure" Intranet?

The Hitler as a Veggie business was probably propaganda, which would have changed on a regional basis, hence two conflicting stories:

At one stage, Albert Speer (minister of production) and Dr Goebels were pushing the slogan "Guns, Not Butter" as part of an austerity drive. All ministers were supposed to make speeches featuring this idea, and most dutifully agreed, and although "preparedness makes us strong, butter merely makes us fat" reads perfectly in the spirit of the idea, the fact that this line was delivered by Herman Goering, to a crowd of thousands who all fell about laughing, sabotaged the message just a little.

The Nazis experimented with a variety of ideologies -antisemitism simply didn't feature to begin with- before gradually settling on what worked and refining it.

What people are forgetting here, is the strong regional identity that still prevailed in Germany when the Nazis came on the scene: not only was it only two generations since it had all been a collection of separate states and Duchies, but many of these were still political entities within Germany, able to pass laws. The Nazi line was tailored to local beliefs and Medawar thinks that the line taken in Prussia could have been a lot more austere than that taken in Bavaria. One Nazi pagent in Frankfurt featured naked female horseriders, for example, whereas in more conservative parts of Germany the local Nazi party would be vowing to "clean up the newstands" and get rid of all the dirty books.

The Nazis did pass anti-vivvie laws, but not necessarily on the national level. Not only was this regional tailoring, to some extent it was an experiment, which they did with a lot of things before rolling them out on a wider scale. Think "Tony Blair" think "Pilot project" followed by "flagship project" and you'll get the idea!

Where the veggies were a force, the Nazis would have been veggies. Where the local economy depended on making sausages and selling them throughout the rest of the country, Nazi leaders would have eaten sausages and loudly declared how good they were. To run a totalitarian state, you need to build a coalition of all the totalitarian-minded groups -AND all the vested interests. You really, really do not have to go far to understand the Nazis: New Labour's political organization and methodology has so far been identical. They haven't yet gassed Jews, but the systematic experimentation to see what they could get away with.

The Neo Nazis have been in the AR movement now since the seventies. This isn't the only place they are active: since 1968, when a group of war-gamers worked a long-term strategy for them, they have been colonizing almost every large scale movement of any kind, including getting followers to disguise their views and become trades union officials. There used to be a ban on people holding fascist views joining the civil service: this went, sometime in the nineties.

Even though you are a regular contributor to Shacwatch, I found your comment about the Nazis quite interesting, certainly concerning how the government is using a similar approach. However I hate the government but I certainly do not think that Gordon Brown or any of his cronies are capable of instigating a final solution in the UK. In foreign wars, maybe but not here which is why we fight them. They are paving the way for a totalitarian regime though, I agree.
As for facists in the AR movement? Well fascism is a totalitarian approach which excludes and exterminates entire sections of the population whilst interfering with every aspect of the lives of those who are deigned fit to be considered citizens. The very first step to stopping animal abuse is to accept that race, sexuality, gender etc are not barriers to equality. How can we as animal liberationists logically say that non human animals are our brothers and sisters whilst denying that fact to a human because of the colour of their skin? For myself as long as a person is not harming another being(unless in self defence or in defending another), I do not care what they do they can wear a burqa or walk around stark naked etc etc, none of my business. Fascists would want to control every aspect of someones life, they are animal abusers of the worst kind as all humans are animals. What the Nazis did was animal abuse. The animal rights movement does not accept facists, yes some may have crept in and told lies, some may have once been facists but have renounced their former beliefs but anyone who proports facist views is not welcome.

By the way, I have been told that Robin Steele, after a breif youthful dalliance with the enemy, has rejected facism.

Why is anyone even questioning LS either? He is the one who told antifa that his brother had turned to the nazis.

The "antifa" posting comments on this piece would know that if they were involved in antifascism, rather than just being a troll.

get your facts right the policy of the former nf was a total ban on vivisection that started in 1968 . this is the plolicy of the bnp it carried on from the nf.,alan clake former conservative mp was a big backer of the nf and as we all {real animal rights people from old} animal rights days a speacker at dover and other ar demos,, i would also say that i have been in ar since 1979 and that the majority of ar people have been saying that for the last 5 years the movement has been highjacked by middle class liberals that in truth use ar to attack capitalism ie they have know other way of attacking the state..i attended a shac city demo not so long ago i arrived at 11am at the tube meet up point, on the same day was an anti iraq war demo about 12 of us arrived in the city, at 11.30 before we even got to the 1st target 10 of the group said were off to war demo! 2 of us were left to do the shac demo, u have to ask yourself animal lovers? or liberals . ile leave you with this thought white working class people vote bnp because we have know hope,.

I'm a man in drag!

look lets get it straight, the what liberals call the right-wing isnt!!, its ordinary people that are the only real threat to the state. the majority of members are working class, and 90% live on council estates or rent private flats they do warehouse work, drivers,factory work , building work etc. we have dogs cats we dont like cruelty to animals and you would be surprised how many have or are in ar and are a hardcore. we dont mouth off about our views on ritual slaughter, chickin hut, kentuky fried chiken and the hal al shops etc we keep quiet and plod on with our ar stalls,and local demos, and as for actions we wouldnt even bother puting up an action against a lab,butchers,hv,etc on biteback.theres no point in that for us,its best to do your own thing tell know one nothing. there have been grasses in ar for years gossips liars it became pathetic, anyone can walk into ar its that easy. in my own view to stop vivisection you have to vote for it.

The one comment that Medawar would make on any allegation that the late Alan Clark MP had any extremist links, is that it was a pretty remarkable sixth sense that made him drive his wife home from the Party Conference in Brighton, just before the bomb went off.

John is probably more or less right, but some in AR have been into the extreme right for a bit longer than thirty years. 1968 seems to be when the extreme right sat down and came up with a strategy. Since when, they've systematically got into every movement going and not just AR or anti-immigration. The logic of this is: they've just got to be in "Searchlight" too!

But when one reads extreme right wing nutters, such as Troy Southgate, stating that "racial nationalism is the only means available to us to defeat globalization with" one realizes that even their core ideology is a cloak of convenience.

George Orwell was right: they seek power exclusively for its own sake.

The Nazis tried several ideologies before they came up with "Nazism" and there were several rival parties doing the same thing at the same time, then the Nazis were "chosen" by German industry and the money and then the power, flowed their way.

The Russians actually had several goes at revolution before the communist one, and even then, there was a period of time, under Lenin, where they were still working out what it was going to mean in practice. Then Stalin replaced Lenin and execution of specific dissidents became an effort to set quotas to kill a given percentage of the population, that was supposed to bring about social change. This differs from Paul Watson and Ronnie Lee only in that they've reversed the percentages: Stalin thought he needed to kill 10% of the population before anything would change, they appear to want a maximum of 10% to actually survive.

Best remember where "The Terror" started: France, in the 18th Century, and it was all built on a philosophy that was supposedly all about "feeling" and yet somehow also, supposedly, all about rationality, too.

Communism and Nazism are attempts to re-invent the French Revolution without looking quite so barking mad. Fascism, coming from Sicily at about the same time that the Sicilians copied the idea of the Mafia from Corsica (which also gave us Napoelon: ta very much), is more like an attempt to re-invent Roman styles of elite government.

Medawar likes modern democracy precisely because it is imperfect: every attempt at a perfect political system so far has resulted only in mass graves.