The semi-vegan!


ue #3

From the editor
I was meant to print this issue, but some of the articles I was promised have been delayed. So I thought I might as well publish what I have ready now and then the rest in the next issue. The next issue will also be published as a pdf, so become a friend of Semi-vegan on Facerbook and you will be updated when the next issue is ready.

together. Add a heading and maybe a photo. That is all! You can write longer if you so wish!
Buy issue 2 – it costs £2.50 including postage!

Text: Knut Caspari


opefully I will be back to printing issues again, as I prefer that. It is cheaper to publish pdfs, so it is a question of cost. I am planing to reprint the best articles in a book along with any new ones. This book will be given away at the vegan fayre in Wolverhampton in October.
Write an article!

Issue 2 was printed with a printrun of 100. It contains loads of interesting articles, including these: • My journey to abolittionism by Emma Attwell • New year by Pete Ryan • Animal rights and human wrongs by N.C.Sweeney • Healing by Julia Langley • Eco-village in Slovakia by Janne Eikeblad • The vegan guide to ironing! by Andrew Knight • The organic gardener by Sophie ChristopherBowes
Help spread this pdf!

An interesting magazine, needs interesting articles! So if you have time, just put a string of words

If you liked this pdf, then help spreading it! I do not make a profit from this magazine, I only need to cover postage and print costs.

Order form
Please make cheques/postal orders out to “Knut Caspari”. All prices include postage within UK and Europe.
Become a supporter!

You can support “The semi-vegan!”, by subscribing. It only costs £7 for 2 issues.
o Subscription: £5. (You will recieve the next 2 printed issues.)

Magazines and books: o Semi-vegan number 2: £2.50. o Sunshine and shadow by Wilfred Crone: £5.00. o One copy of the Vegan Views book: £4.50. o Two copies of the Vegan Views books: £8.00.
Name: Address: Post code: Landline phone no: Post: Longridge, Bankend Road, Dumfries, DG1 4TP. E-mail:

Vintage vegan views

A new civilisation?
We are human beings, only one species of creatures in the vast panorama of living existence. We also happen to live presently upon planet earth and although we tend to identify with our bodies our problems and our various activities, we might well be doing ourselves a grave injustice.

Text: Veran Van Dam Reprinted from issue 5 of Vegan Views, 1975.


t is quite obvious that something is amiss in the way we humans live. After all where do we find another kingdom in nature so badly organised as ourselves? Two-thirds of the world’s human population eats poorly or starves – perhaps one person per 1000 lives in true luxury at the expense of all too many who live miserable earthly lives, slaves to the seemingly unending grind of inequality and/or oppression. We are not only badly organised, but many of us are selfish, moody, but mostly misguided. When we look at history (i.e. a set of records which at best only reflect a small part of what goes on, at worse are political lies and propaganda), we get the impression that the tragically-comical farce has been going on and on for such a long time. Thousands of years ago the Egyptians held a socialist-communist empire which worked so-so, at any rate it eventually failed. The Romans worked a “logical” state system, strongly based around a national state ideal – they failed too, as did the Greeks from which the Romans borrowed much. The Middle Ages were often grim, The Christian Church – mostly a political body devoid of the original Christian ideals and philosophy set itself up as a mono-lateral to mono-bloc power and attempted to control everything. They failed; but many people suffered. The Incas, the Aztecs, the Chinese etc. all these fell too. Presently both communist and capitalist systems are falling… what will replace them? Yet more rises and collapses? Cultures flourishing here, only to die somewhere along the way?! What is it that makes human society so ephemeral and painful in adequate?

One answer there is: ignorance. Because we act as if blindfolded, because we act with selfish or greedy interests, because we react emotionally, because basically we are imbalanced, generally unloving and fail to grasp our relationship with the totality of life. As with all unstable organisms in nature we are “destroyed” by the flow of evolutionary pressure. Needless to say we gradually learn from our mistakes – slowly – very slowly. Perhaps one day we will be wise enough to live intellectually and profitably to all. (Creativity, one might think.) What does “to live intelligently” entail? We are, after all, all endowed with a mind, and feasibly occasionally it could be made to work for us instead of against us. Basically we are living in a particular environment which as a whole constitutes a biological, ecological unit. To know how this unit functions and adapt to it so as to assist it in its enfoldment instead of destroying it, that is creative living. To know (“or not to know”) – knowledge. We need information. We need to understand. Not only do we need to know theoretically, but we have to participate, as it were, with the matter that we know or need to apprehend. We need to be sensitive, in other words. We need to share ourselves with our environment, love our planet, take good care of it, understand its ways, and adapt to it so as to fulfil it as well as ourselves. We are also on the threshold of a space age – but inwardly as well as outwardly it would seem. From one point of view we might soon be able to visit other planets, and perhaps other solar systems; but equally, if not more significantly, we are on the doorstep to inner worlds and dimensions, the exploitation of which might well give us indisputable answers to our physical world’s problems. In fact what might be in the offing is the passage into an age of illumination, enlightenment and understanding (code name “Aquarius”) already cybernetics, films, television, radio, publications etc are speeding up the rate of assimilations of information. They still contain negative, sleepinducing elements as well, but for those whose

Vintage vegan views


inner lights flicker as might do pilot lights, the promise of healthy flames burning on unlimited supplies of information, sensitive discrimination and loving interaction, is almost well nigh assured. Should we come to lose what is almost within our grasp we would be fools indeed. One may look upon this from various angles. Everything should be considered, weighed, kept, discarded, or stored for future reference. We have the means to put a fantastic civilisation afoot if only we can blend the more positive elements emanating out of each segment of human endeavour and activity. If the acid visionaries could link up with the Yogis, and these two with the technicians and scientists, and all these with the younger, more enlightened politicians and clergy, and these with the artists and writers, and all these reflect a positive image to help produce positive ecosensitive products, create psychologically stimulating homes, and share ideals, methods, and insights with all those who might want to change also, but as yet are unable to provoke it themselves without a helping hand, then perhaps we would get somewhere. Of course these things are already happening slowly, but surely – but we cannot just sit back and wait for others to lay it all on. If each one of us does a small fraction of the work, then collectively we shall succeed. If individually we work ourselves out and then adhere to a sense of unity brought upon by mutual love and respect as well as by

survival necessity, then there is no real limit to our enfoldment as humans, in balance and co-operation with other creatures, things and intelligences. Our potential is as vast as we are able to conceive of and create newness. Where the mere terrestrial blends into the cosmic is for us to suss out. The whole matter lies within our hands. In so far as we act responsibly, lovingly and effectively in the next few years we will bridge the old and the new, and transport essential supplies of information and skill from the one (old) side which is sinking to the other (new) side which is like purified territory awaiting the enfoldment of new experiments. So long as we harness our potential, flow with the tide, keep things in creative balance, perceive and add to the beauty of things we will meet perhaps our greatest opportunity yet. Terrestrial 3-dimensional man becoming cosmic 4-dimensional or multi-dimensional “super” man? If such a thing is possible, then we can do it. We have (perhaps subconsciously only) been looking that way for a long time – indeed what is the essence of philosophy, religion and the mystery schools and seekers if not that? Life may be difficult to understand sometimes, the abstractions too lofty, the practicalities too demanding, and yet it is not the greatest challenge to understand… ourselves?

Vintage vegan views


Vegans on the defensive?
There is now considerable evidence to prove that, by nature, the gorilla is a very gentle creature that lives on nuts, young bananas trees and bamboo shoots, plus other vegetation. Gorillas spend most of their time eating, sleeping and playing, and to a large extent enjoy a life of freedom and tranquillity.

Text: Graham Jeffery Reprinted from issue 9 of Vegan Views, 1976.


o maintain this state of peace among the commune, Nature provided the huge silverback male to act as a protector. With his immense size and strength he is able to discourage would-be intruders and predators. Humans, who may be related to the gorilla, also have a strong desire for peace and tranquillity. But for some reason, which I don’t feel qualified to explain, harmony among humans is often difficult and sometimes impossible to achieve. Whilst I agree with the points made by the outright pacifist, I see no harm in developing the human body to a higher degree of strength so long as other creatures are not made to suffer in the process. I have, since the age of about ten, practiced arts such as judo, wrestling and karate, but I have found that the biggest deterrent to the would-be troublemaker is an opponent’s size and strength. After once being hospitalised for three weeks by a heavily built farm labourer I realised size and strength was also the best way of defending oneself. To those of you who say “It couldn’t happen to me and if it did a vegan should show an example by turning the other cheek”, I feel you have a good point and I admire your philosophy, but like to offer the following advice:

If ever confronted by a sixteen stone drunk, try first of all to reason with him, using an intellectual approach. This could have the effect of stunning him into agreeing with you so as not to show off his ignorance. If this fails, surprise them by taking off at great speed, touching any friends/partners arm as you pass to indicate that they also dispatch. Incidentally I believe that when carrying a child women move faster when the child is strapped on their back. To those of you who don’t like the idea of running away from those types of situations, I would strongly recommend increasing one’s strength by a little weight training. As the subject of weight training is too involved for me to describe in detail here, I can only offer the following hints… Firstly, a high protein diet is important. This should include the liberal use of soya products, nuts, and legumes with plenty of raw fruit and vegetables. I advise half an hour weightlifting for 2/3 times a week in a local gym under guided instruction. The increase of weights must be gradual and a set-out programme adhered to. The amount of time spent can be surprisingly small to still produce good results. Even 15 minutes per night doing press-ups, sit-ups and leg raisers will strengthen them and tone them up. I have increased my weight by 20% and almost trebled my strength with weightlifting and I adhere to a strict vegan diet. To those who say extra weight could be bad for health, I would say that I feel much fitter and stronger on a weight training programme than I did before as my daily work involves very little physical effort.

Vintage vegan views


Interview with K. Jannaway
This interview with Kathleen Jannaway was printed in Vegan Views 11, 1977 by Malcolm Horne & Marijke McCartney. Kathleen was Secretary of the UK Vegan Society from 19711984. Marijke McCartney: I would first like to ask you about the Vegan Society generally, because not all the Newsletter readers are members of the Society. What are the aims of the Vegan Society? Kathleen Jannaway: That’s rather an interesting question. The function of the Vegan Society is simply to spread veganism of course, that is not by any means pushing veganism on people but making them aware of the possibility of veganism, so they are free to choose it if they want it. When you’ve found something of value you are under an obligation to spread the news as far as you can so that other people, who may be looking for that, can find it. That’s what I’ve found so rewarding through these years – people have written to us saying “I never knew it was possible – this is just what I wanted”. When you find it is possible it alters your whole attitude to life. As for the membership I do wish people would join because one of the first things that you get asked is how many members there are. And man is such a herd animal you know and one of the hardest things about being vegan is that you’re standing a little different from everybody else. For some people, as soon as they know they’re not going to be so odd and not going to be so cranky, that makes all the difference. Marijke McCartney: How do you think the members themselves can help? Kathleen Jannaway: The most important thing vegans have done is to show that it is possible. When the first vegans became vegan nobody believed it was possible. Your first obligation is to practise the vegan way of life and show that it’s healthy. The more people that do it the more convincing it is. Now, after 33 years of the Vegan Society, whatever the experts say, they’ve shown that it’s possible because they’ve done it. The experts can go on arguing as to how and why but they can’t argue that it’s not possible. Marijke: I used to read in ‘The Vegetarian’ that veg-

ans lived entirely on plant produce and eventually I wrote off for free literature and I became a vegan and a member of the Society. Kathleen: And it helped you in the early days so then I think there is a certain obligation to keep up your membership to help others have the same advantage later. Marijke: We didn’t know any vegans when we joined so we went to the social meetings advertised in ‘The Vegan’ and in fact you were the first vegan Kevin and I ever met, when we were on the way to Eva Batt’s. Malcolm: I want to ask you how you see the future, bearing in mind that the Vegan Society has grown quite a lot since you’ve been Secretary – which is about five years I think. The membership has more than doubled in that time hasn’t it? Kathleen: Yes, the figure now is 2567 which is the number of people that have joined since the Society started 33 years ago although that doesn’t mean there are that many active people in the Society. Malcolm: Do you think veganism is going to spread at that rate in the future? Kathleen: I think it is going to spread – I think it is going to spread at a great rate. Malcolm: If people ask me how many vegans there are in Britain I usually say about 5000 – I don’t know whether you think that’s a good figure? Kathleen: I find it difficult to answer that question. I’m always coming across people who are vegans but not members of the Society. You see, some people just don’t join societies full stop. I’d like to ask why some of your Newsletter readers don’t join. I think people often expect the Society to be what it isn’t. I have people write and they complain because we don’t promote certain religions or some political action. This is what I fight against hard, to prevent us getting aligned with any narrow group of any kind, whether dietary or religious or social or political groups, and to keep us really broadly based. Malcolm: Maybe some people don’t join because they feel the Vegan Society is not going about things the right way and would join if the Vegan Society did ‘such and such’. Kathleen: Such as? This is what I would be inter-

Vintage vegan views


ested in – constructive criticism. If they said “Why don’t you do this?”, then I could get myself thinking “well, is that a good idea or isn’t it?” because I’m terribly keen to have more ideas on how to spread veganism. Mind you, I sometimes think that we present a Christian image too much and an orthodox medicine image too much but on the whole I justify that because we live in a so-called Christian society and the power-that-be in this society is orthodox medicine. And if you’re going to make an impact it is sensible to use the language of the dominant culture. I know some people are dead set against orthodox medicine and I think as vegans one must be against certain aspects but nevertheless it is the background of our society. I have respect for the scientific attitude but it is very incomplete and inadequate in itself. Malcolm: Do you not think there is a danger of people attaching too much importance to veganism so that it almost consumes their lives? Kathleen: For me very definitely veganism is only one small part of my whole philosophy of life. But at the moment it’s rather crucial because so many other things are contradictory. Take Christianity for instance – to preach, as the Christians do, compassion and a belief in reality as being like a loving father and yet think that such a God could make a world in which animals should have such strong feelings just in order to be thwarted so that human beings... I mean it’s so incongruous isn’t it – so contradictory. I think most people haven’t been confronted with the situation – it’s a real shock if they are. Marijke: I don’t think there’s much difference if you say veganism is only part – you can just as well say veganism is the whole. I can see what you mean if you say veganism is part but sometimes I see veganism as my life because veganism really includes everything for me. It is what I think at the moment will help to bring about a mere peaceful way of life. Kathleen: I don’t like taking veganism as the whole but I know what you mean by it so I’m not criticising you but to me it’s just one essential part that at this moment in time and space is very important. I find it very difficult to have sympathy with people who are always going around reading the small print on all the packages and telling you that if you don’t eat this you’re going to…, if you eat

this everything will be wonderful.... All this concentrating on food in that sense I find it very difficult to sympathise with. To me veganism is a necessary part of the compassionate way of life – if you really think through what compassion means it must include veganism but, you see, it must include veganism not veganism living for veganism itself. And there’s this huge question that I’m always having to wrestle with of where do you draw the line – I mean, where do you draw the line? Marijke: You can’t ever draw the line. Kathleen: I mean, some people take up a position which is quite untenable – I don’t really think you can go through life without killing something, or indirectly being responsible. People don’t always think things through. While we’re in this moment in time and space a certain amount of killing and suffering, and imposing the suffering, is unavoidable but just because a certain amount is, some people immediately follow up, very falsely as I see it, with “well then, it doesn’t matter”. To me the opposite is true – because it is sometimes necessary one is under obligation never to do it unless it is strictly necessary. The connection and the balance between reason and emotion is terribly important. They’ve got to be in harmony in the human personality. The tragedy of our time is that the intellect has outstripped the natural life and now, fortunately, it’s provoking a reaction. But people are so turning against the intellect because of its dreadful fruits, the atom bomb and other departments of science, that before we know where we are we’ll be back in superstition and magic and all the rest of it which is just as horrible you see. After all, our reason is a wonderful tool, it’s a most important tool, but it should be the servant of our compassion. Malcolm: In a recent debate on vegetarianism in ‘The Ecologist’, Michael Allaby states that “we have no ecologically really acceptable alternative to the non-edible animal products”, giving the example “your alternative to hide, to leather, is plastic. You’re now into heavy petro-chemical engineering. It’s possible to do it. It’s economically feasible, but ecologically it’s not the nicest thing one can think of, and in the long term I would submit it’s expensive”. Now that, I find, awkward to answer. Kathleen: well, I don’t agree with him. I think it’s very much a matter of turning our research into the right directions. I mean, what was the first form of

Vintage vegan views


artificial fabric? Artificial silk that’s made from trees. It can be a very simple process, it’s not plastic and it’s certainly degradable. Artificial fabrics of all kinds can be made from plants and trees. There’s cotton, there’s rubber, I’m sure there’s all sorts of other marvellous things, it’s just that we haven’t gone into them. Malcolm Horne: When people ask about veganism one of the questions they often ask is “what about wool?” and if you say (not all vegans do) “I don’t use wool” then they say “well, how do you keep warm?”. And, of course, it can be difficult to keep warm without wool. Kathleen Jannaway: I don’t know that wool’s all that much warmer you know. It’s horrible stuff when it gets all sodden with sweat. I don’t know that wool is by any means the perfect fabric. There are all sorts of things one can do with cotton and other materials. There’s all sorts of plants that could be used. Marijke McCartney: But you can’t often buy them. Kathleen Jannaway: Ah, but that’s society today. If the demand was there the supply would come. Malcolm Horne: Why do you think there are several eminent ecologists who don’t go along with vegetarianism? They go along with eating less meat, they all agree on that, but they don’t go the full way to vegetarianism. Is it their compassion which is lacking? Kathleen Jannaway: Yes, it’s their lack of understanding of what man is and what he should be and what he should be developing into. What sort of animal is man and what direction has he got to evolve in, this is the real question to my mind, I think it is now clearly indicated that the evolution of man should go in the direction that we in our hearts feel is the right one, that all the great teachers have agreed about, in the direction of compassion and love. Jesus and Buddha and Gandhi and all the rest of them, they all say the same thing in essence – although it’s dressed up in different cultures. Malcolm Horne: Maybe some ecologists see their subject as elevated to such an extent that everything’s got to fit ecology whereas I would turn it round and say that your ecology has got to fit your ethics. Kathleen Jannaway: Yes, yes. So many scientists are sheer babes on the emotional side. I think it’s

the fault of early education – people don’t realise that children need to develop the emotional side of their nature. Probably once they start to think too much and read too much it makes it difficult. It makes me very sad to think of people who don’t realise the tremendous importance of myth and fairy tale and arts and drawing and all that side of life – it’s much more important in early education than learning to read and write. I think the early development of the intellect can do a lot to stunt the emotional growth. Marijke McCartney: What would you like to see in the Newsletter? Kathleen Jannaway: Well, I think what I am most interested in, personally, is seeing what makes people tick with regard to veganism. I’m interested in the philosophical background – as we’ve said, veganism to me is only part of my general philosophy of life and I’m interested to see how people fit it into their various philosophies of life. As for the Newsletter’s function I think it’s a very useful medium by which people can exchange ideas. I feel that ‘The Vegan’ itself has got to be more of a shopwindow. First of all it’s got to be more practical to help people who are turning over to veganism and it’s got to deal with the practical difficulties that arise in their life. It’s got to help them work out the answers to little problems which we dealt with in our turn. It’s horribly repetitive to somebody who’s been in the movement for a long time. I also feel there is a responsibility not to put stumbling blocks in the way of people who are feeling out to veganism. I mean, some of the things that people say are awfully silly and ridiculous. Now, if I’m going to fill ‘The Vegan’ up with that somebody else who is looking in the direction of veganism, and still at that stage, may be glad of an excuse to say “Ah, well, I told you they were a lot of silly cranks”. If they read something cranky in ‘The Vegan’ it can put them off and I feel an obligation to avoid that but on the other hand it’s necessary really for people to be able to speak out on these things and I think in the Newsletter they could have the freedom to do that – it doesn’t have to be a shop-window quite so much. Marijke McCartney: How did you come to veganism yourself? Kathleen Jannaway: As a town dweller I never thought about food until I went to live on a farm

Vintage vegan views


during the war. I turned vegetarian because the lamb outside was the leg of lamb on my plate – a bit of that creature out there who had just as much right to run around as I had. I’d never thought about it before. People don’t think about it – the blockage in people’s minds I think is amazing don’t you? They can go to church and sing ‘Lamb of God’ and then go home and say “this is a tender bit of lamb, dear” and never connect it up, do they? I never thought it was possible to do without dairy products and, if things aren’t possible, you don’t think about them do you? And then, that was during the war I turned vegetarian, then in 1964 I read a book review of Ruth Harrison’s ‘Animal Machines’ and it knocked me for six – the factory farming and all the things she showed up. I was absolutely horrified – slaugh-

ter houses are bad enough but to think that an animal wasn’t going to have any sort of life at all, and the only significance of an animal’s life is moving about in the fresh air, isn’t it? I mean, it’s not in a way so bad for you or me – if I was shut up in a prison at least I could think and philosophize and I might be able to read and write, but an animal’s life is movement out in the world. I can remember going along to a Friends Vegetarian Society meeting and getting up and saying “you know, what is the use of being vegetarian when one of the most awful aspects of the whole business is the veal calf?” That’s when it really came through to me that veganism was a possible idea – that’s how I came to veganism.

Why try to fit in?
Vegans and vegetarians, who are usually very humane, sensitive people, often say how difficult it is to ‘fit in’ with society, but why fit in?!

Text: Celia Barrie Reprinted from issue 5 of Vegan Views, 1975.


ow can we rightly fit in with all the brutalities and absurdities of our time? A compromise is weak, negative, and can hardly be very satisfactory. Personally, I have found it better to openly opt out and find a better way to live, at least part-time; and this is quite practicable in a motor-caravan, which has everything these days from gas-cooking to fumeless heating etc. A simple, largely raw diet fits in perfectly; no time-consuming and unhealthy chores beyond keeping very methodical, tidy, and caring for the vehicle’ home & transport combined, while walking and cycling and saving fuel as much as possible, less fuel being necessary than in a house, which takes up building space, whereas the motor-caravan can

be parked on farms much to the farmer’s benefit; the glorious freedom, beauty and variety of the great outdoors can be enjoyed continuously instead of spasmodically; there is time for thought, insight, meditation, reading, writing, etc. and the joy of meeting people and getting them to unburden their psychological problems that no one else wants to face, and helping them to sort themselves out; opportunities for social work and introductions to a freer, more humane and natural way of life. Far from condemning our wonderful technology I regard it, when rightly used, as a wonderful means of providing us with all the material things necessary for living close of nature, but in comfort and freedom. And, why more single, psychologically mature people do not choose to live in motor-caravans surprises me, more especially as we hope soon to get over the petrol-pollution problem, and built-up accommodation is so expensive and difficult to find. This way we use up far less of the world’s dwindling resources, while living in freedom and joy.

Vintage vegan views


Vegan Views: past and future
It is now well over a year since the first issue appeared and time perhaps to reflect on failures and successes and possible future directions.

Text: Malcolm, David and Sue Reprinted from issue 8 of VV, 1976.


e are printing about 200 copies of this eighth issue as this seems to be our approximate circulation at the moment – that’s more than double than what it was last year. Many people have written to us very enthusiastically about Vegan Views whilst others have read just one or two copies and taken their interest no further but, understandably, we cannot expect to please or appeal to everyone – even amongst vegans. Our purposely informal approach, for example, may put off those people who are used to and prefer a more formal and conventional style. It is worth repeating here our statement: “We are a group of vegans attempting to establish contact between people who – with vegetarianism as a base (but not an entire philosophy) – are interested in creating more harmonious ways of living.” Well, we certainly have established many contacts, not only through Vegan Views of course but also very much so through our stalls at various festivals. It is important to stress that we don’t view vegetarianism or veganism as an “entire philosophy” – indeed it is very easy to fall into the trap of believing our own cause to be the most important of all. It is important but we should not forget that there are very many caring people, most of them probably meat-eaters, who are working all over the world for peace, harmony and truth. So, what of Vegan Views content? We have relied very much on unsolicited individual contributions – and have published nearly everything sent to us, more or less regardless of quality (which fortunately has been generally high). With this format it is inevitable, or course, that sometimes Vegan Views may lack balance; there is therefore an argument in favour of more “control” (even censorship!) so as to provide a generally more interesting publication.

But would this be “selling-out”?! We can’t, and don’t want to, write about veganism all the time. So does Vegan Views cover a wide enough number of topics? If not, what other fields might we be exploring? Should we make more attempt to communicate with all types of vegans and would-be-vegans? We have, for example, tried to put across a philosophy of “wholefoods” – omitting such items as sugar, tinned and processed foods, etc. But, understandably, many people cannot and do not wish to follow us this far. Should we make more effort to cater for them? Should we be prepared, for example, to print non-wholefood vegan recipes? This is a dilemma that has actually arisen and we decided, with some diversity of opinion, to exclude them. Was this a correct decision? (Following a “protest” we have in fact included a non-wholefood recipe.) The future will depend on what you write and on the ideas of those people who actually come and help Vegan Views. Because of the obvious timepressures in a short weekend it is desirable to do a fair amount of preliminary work on the magazine before the weekend itself; nevertheless we do try to make it as “communal” a concern as possible. And, still on the subject of the future, we are wondering whether we should “expand”. Two months seems a good interval between issues but it would be possible (if contributions merited it and more people helped in the production) to increase the number of pages. We are probably going to advertise in various magazines. We’re not too worried about collecting 5p for every single Newsletter (provided we can cover our costs overall); the main thing is rather that we should reach a larger audience. It is very “cosy” to stay small, but arguably, if we have anything worthwhile to say then we should always be attempting to reach more people. However, don’t worry; we don’t (as yet) have any aspirations to turn into a glossy commercialised magazine!!!

Vintage vegan views


“The Vegetarian”: on the wrong track?
THE VEGETARIAN, circulated free to most health food shops, has a large readership and supports itself largely from the extensive amount of advertising which appears on its pages, a fact which pre-determines its image to a great extent – the magazine is necessarily the “cash-in” side of wholefoods/vegetarianism, i.e. products such as vitamin pills, processed TVP dishes, elixirs of life, etc. These generally bring in large profits to their manufacturers and are not at all necessary for a healthy, vegetarianbased life, although often a claim is made for the exact opposite. Text: Malcolm Horne & Sue Taylor Reprinted from issue 8 of Vegan Views, 1976. tribes or the occult and not simply limiting itself to vegetarianism and diet, is also usually worth reading. Balanced against this however, is an excess of “twee” and often tedious journalism and an apparent inability to exercise any real kind of critical faculty on the subject of the vegetarian. The “jolly veggie” attitude, backed up by photographs or vegetarian or semi-vegetarian film stars/and or celebrities, surely cannot appeal to the more perceptive reader. Of course, there are often fairly serious and interesting articles on the world food problem, gardening, and the vegetarian ethic and so on, but one wonders why it has to be surrounded by so much shallowness and “trendy” writing. Is this really the best way to win over potential vegetarians or even appeal to existing ones? The Vegetarian Society’s leaflets and booklets are generally of a much higher standard although they of course are not usually connected with the previously mentioned advertising. To be fair, it is not easy to produce a magazine and can be intrusting simultaneously to many different “types” of vegetarians and potential vegetarians. Particularly difficult is the task of stimulating the regular reader who has “read and seen it all before”. All the same, one might wish for a more sensible and less gimmicky approach.


owever, looking on the positive side, THE VEGETARIAN does present news of happenings in the vegetarian world and there are items likely to be of particular interest to vegetarians leading more conventional lives and able to identify relatively easily with this type of journalism. Perhaps the most interesting section of the magazine is the Letters Page which features a wide cross-section of often intelligent and constructive viewpoints. The Book Review section, dealing sometimes with fringe subjects such as primitive

Vintage vegan views


Letters reprinted from Vegan Views 5/75, 8/76,10/78 and 11/78
Please give me inspiration!

I wonder if there are any among you who can give me inspiration or possible contacts regarding the question of footwear for the vegetarian. I have only recently become vegetarian and have until recently been wearing leather footwear but now this does not feel right to me anymore. At the same time I am not very keen on the idea of wearing plastic or rubber and would prefer to find an alternative of natural materials if such a thing were possible. The nearest thing I can imagine is canvas shoes with rope soles, although this is quite summery and I’d properly have to resort to wellingtons in the winter – but I have no idea where I could get such things. It would be the same problem for children’s shoes as well. I imagine some of you must have already come up against this problem and maybe you too are not very keen on synthetic fibres so anyone who could advise me or help me I should be very pleased to get a letter. Judy Hudson
No conflict between human and animal!

In reply to Malcolm’s “Reflection” in issue 4, I have yet to hear of a serious case of conflict between interest of humans and animals. Where such a conflict seems to exist, there is nearly always a better alternative than exploiting animals for human benefit – as in the case for medical research, where the use of animals has, by and large, done more harm than good. Individual cases of conflict between human and animal interests must be judged on their own merits and the human’s own conscience. For example I personally am not against safeguarding crops against the onslaught of birds by the use of scarecrows or rook-scarers. But shotguns, poisons, insecticides etc, are definitely out – even if the harmful side-effects did not exist. Alternatives are always there if you look for them. Robin Howard
Go the whole way – go vegan!

Sue Taylor’s letter interested me as she seems to have the right aim in life but is under considerable

pressure to return to an omnivorous diet. Despite that she is trying to take her diet the whole way in going vegan. I was vegetarian and changed almost overnight to vegan just over a year ago. I have not found Sue’s problems as my friends just accept my firm refusal of meat and diary foods. When a complete meal is offered to me by a friend or relative I just eat what I want and leave the rest. I have not lost friends because of this, even in County Durham where vegetarians are rare and vegans unheard of. I do however confess that I don’t ask what cakes and biscuits are made from when offered them in someone else’s house; but at home I make my own bread, cakes and biscuits with wholemeal flour, soya flour and vegetable fats. As far as protein is concerned I don’t consider that I keep myself short of this despite refusing meat at friend’s houses. I always catch up with homemade meals made with a mixture of beans and grains which I take to work with me to eat at lunch. If away from home for any time I buy and enjoy fresh nut kernels with bread which is usually in the form of a salad sandwich. I will accept white bread of there is no alternative. I’m sure I must be getting adequate amounts of protein as I do a bit of weightlifting and I fare well with my colleagues. One further word about synthetics. There is natural cellophane on the market which does disintegrate when discarded. I only buy plastic shoes. Many of the modern designs are plastic and can be discarded when the fashion changes, they are more trendy and cheaper than the old fashioned allleather ones. I don’t find my feet being uncomfortable but I do like fairly loose fitting shoes which allow the air to circulate. I possess certain articles which originate from animals. Among these is a leather watch strap which was given to me as a present. I wear this so as not to offend but I would never purchase leather goods myself. Perhaps ethically this is just as bad as eating meat so as not to offend a friend. However I don’t feel it is so bad because the strap can eventually be disregarded but the food is consumed and once of habit of accepting meat is established then I would be under continual pressure to accept more,

Vintage vegan views


and the image of a vegetarian as outsiders understand one, i.e. by diet alone, would be completely lost. As with the watch strap I would never knowingly purchase articles of animal origin. The thought of owning these things and how they were produced repulses me. Graham Jeffery Felt is not cool! In issue 8 we had a query about the suitability of felt (“a stuff of wool, or wool and hair”) for vegans. We have now discovered that rabbit hair or other animal hair is predominantly used and so felt cannot be classed as vegan. Perhaps it is worth taking this opportunity to point out that avoiding all items containing animal products is a virtual impossibility. We feel it is very much up to the individual as to where they draw the line. Many “vegans” freely use wool, even leather, particularly if items made of these were in their possession before becoming vegan. Also there are an increasing number of people nowadays who, usually for ecological reasons are not happy about using synthetic materials and indeed, they may consider using wool and leather is the “lesser of two evils”. It may be argued that the inability of our planet’s ecological system to reabsorb such materials eventually causes more suffering to life than does the use of animal products which in this instance are more “natural” i.e. can be returned to the earth without any problems. This is not a justification for using felt or anything else which is partially or wholly derived from animals, but we would like to point out that it is not, or at least we believe it is not, the best interpretation of veganism to spend one’s life worrying about every last particle in a particular item. That way we’re branded, and perhaps rightly so, as fanatics! Malcolm, Sue, Kevin, Lawrie, Tony & James. Advice please on cat’s diets! We have two cats: a Persian, and a half Burmese/Half Siamese. They are healthy, happy and affectionate; they are also both neutered (the girl after her first litter). Their present diet consists of soya protein cooked in a soya and vegetable bullion cube; cooked or raw fish; and scraps from our meals – they mostly like

rice, beans, mushroom gravy and sweetcorn – but this is only in very small quantities. One is also passionate about avocado, and crispbread with margarine on. They both love houseplants! We eat no canned food, and neither will I buy it for the cats. I hate preparing their fish, even though I buy it filleted so as to avoid heads/tails etc. Ideally we’d like to wean them off fish. What could we substitute it with that would provide adequate protein and generally good nutrition? None of the ideas in the ‘Vegetarian Cats and Dogs’ booklet have appealed to them. Is it wrong to try to convert an animal with a carnivorous anatomy and nature to a vegetarian diet? Isn’t that forcing my ideas onto them and they are in no position to answer back, other than to starve because they don’t like the food alternatives I offer? Isn’t that insensitive and disrespectful to my fellow animals? Are there any other readers with practical experience and advice to give on converting cats who grew up on a flesh diet to a veggie/vegan one? Dee North Structure – not loose ends! The tendency towards criticism and examination is, provided it is kept under control, very constructive and welcome in the magazine. Instead of hollow praise all the time it is, I think, much more healthy to openly discuss and debate the methods, thoughts and ideas of others. And it is not always the vegetarians, vegans and ecologists who are right and the rest of the world who is wrong. Surely the truth should be valued before veganism or any other “ism”? If I have any criticism myself it must be that the issues I have seen usually seem to have been put together rather randomly and some of the contributions are now and again rather unconvincing. Maybe a greater degree of planning and selectiveness would improve this. The spontaneity might be lost a little but this might be considered a worthwhile compromise. However this is a personal opinion and you may disagree. How about some articles or features on veganic food growing, how feasible it is on a large scale, the problems associated with it, and so on? John O`Kelly

Vintage vegan views


Vegan – at last!

I have been vegetarian for a few years now, but finally got round to becoming vegan when we moved next to a farm and I lay awake at night listening to the cows bellowing for their calves who had been taken off them in order to use the cow for milk-production. But a couple of weeks ago I acquired two beautiful goats. They are really lovely creatures and have given me a lot of pleasure. The female has to be milked every day; as you probably know, it is vital to milk her every day until she “dries off” to stop her getting all sorts of nasty things like mestitis etc. I don’t know what your reasons for being vegan are, but I can see absolutely no wrong in using this milk for human consumption. The goat must be milked, she has not got a kid so no-one is being deprived of their food and I can use the nilk.When I do put her into kid, and hopefully shr will produce one next spring. I will rear it naturally. I would be very interested to hear other people’s comments on this situation. Also, I would like to comment on the letter from Dee North. I do not believe it is wise to put dogs and cats on a vegetarian diet; this is definitely not natural. Perhaps the only answer is to not keep them. A good “natural” diet (though it does include meat) for dogs can be found in an excellent book by Juliette de Bairacli Levy called Herbal handbook for dogs, or something like that. Jo Carter Kdfjdkfj Paul Halford´s comments on the Vegan Society´s AGM seem to me quite pointless. An AGM sums up the previous year´s work, which in this case is the spreading of the vegan way of life. May I suggest that if he wants politics, drugs, occult and sex discussed then he form the appropriate organization. (Should he start one on sex, I´ll join it.) Gordon Davey Stay cool – while being beaten! With reference to the article by Graham Jeffery

entitled “Vegans on the defensive?”, I feel there is one very important fact which he has omitted to mention. That fact is that people attract what they are and this applies to all aspects of a person’s nake-up. If you are prone to hate then you attract hate; if you are prone to pettiness you attract pettiness; if you are prone to love you attract love and if you are prone to physical violence you attract physical violence. You attract what you are and the only defence is to adjust your own basic character. This adjustment can be made in many ways – the two better known ways are through Spiritual development groups and through meditation. Learning karate etc may appear to be the answer to the violent drunk etc but it is far from satisfactory. Running away is a better solution but I would suggest that the effort (some-times a great effort) required to remove the cause is the only real solution to violence in all its forms. Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out to Graham that a “punch on the nos” is not the worst form of violence. The words of spite, malico etc are far more harmful and are to be, deprecated far more than physical violence. Words which cause a person to lose faith or confidence cause far more damage than the temporary pain in the backside caused by a well aimed kick. Whilst I appreciate the skills involved in karate etc the skill involved in becoming truly non- violent is well worth acquiring and far more satisfactory as it eliminates the cause .and not just the sympton. Peter Brown I am getting stronger! Since I became a vegan I have become, both spiritually and physically, a different person. I am so happy, so undeservedly madly happy! I feel as if I am flying and dancing on our poor and beautiful earth. And this feeling of release, and sometimes even mystical breakthrough, has lasted now for nine months or a year, and becomes stronger, as I become stronger. Anne Hoose

The semi-vegan


Veganism and the hard facts of life?
way? We in England are very fortunate with regard to disease or death-carrying creatures. But even here how many vegans are happy to share their homes with rats, mice, fleas etc. or their gardens with caterpillars, slugs, aphides etc? On a world scale man’s war against various creatures has saved millions of human lives. Take mosquitoes for Text: James Okell example: “it is a fact that whole discrete areas in Reprinted from issue 8 Vegan Views, 1976. the world have been cleared of the mosquito and these areas are growing know there’s a lot “Diphtheria and tetanus are killers. Polio, T.B. wider and more numerwrong with orthodox and whooping cough are maimers. With all these ous. As a result millions medicine, but the some children will survive by natural resistance to of people have been quote is written by a docthe attack. Many will go under and either die or saved the morbidity and tor who seems to know be maimed. There is no essential difference the mortality of malaria, what he’s talking about – between the disease itself and the injection against which in the past has G. A. Stanton, whose it. Both stimulate a natural reaction in the child. been the biggest killer of book ‘Health Hazards of There is no argument on earth which will ever all” – G. A. Stanton. But a Western Diet’ shows, convince me that million’s of children’s lives have without going on forever among other things, that not been saved by immunisation procedures”. with examples of how chlorine in water causes G. A. Stanton man’s welfare clashes heart disease. with that of other creaAnd I believe that rabies, the deadly disease that tures let me conclude by saying that I’m all for vegis it present sweeping across the continent, can only anism in the strictly limited sense defined by the be controlled by vaccination (and the killing of Vegan Society, but beyond that, however beautiful foxes). How many vegans would be prepared to die people’s ideals, the realities of this world, and not a the horrible and inevitable death (unless vaccinatmake-believe one, have to be faced. ed) if infected by a rabid dog? Or be prepared to allow their children to die in such a way – or any
I believe there are many vegans who talk in a rather vague way about ‘harmony’ with all life, who are unaware of the many brutal facts of existence. I’d be particularly interested to hear some ‘vegan’ attitudes to orthodox medicine, especially vaccinations, immunisations etc.


Response to the above article:
Response 1

To say that “some children will survive by natural resistance…Many will go under…” gives a false impression as to the severity and frequency of the occurrence of the illnesses mentioned. Diphtheria is seldom seen these days because the causal background was the bad sanitary conditions which caused it have now been controlled: innoculation against was started only when the disease was well on its way out… Whooping cough is very seldom a maimer in my experience but I have known children, who have been innoculated against it, suffer from continual chest complains instead. Others take the disease

just the same… That there is “no essential difference between the disease itself and the injection against it…” is again false. In timing alone, there is an essential difference. We are all born at different times, under different conditions with different backgrounds – to give many people exactly the same disease to combat at the same moment in time means that some will struggle over long periods to throw it off, if they happen to be at a low ebb, when they may never have met it in their lifetime. Compton Burnett, in his book “Vaccinosis” gives his experiences and case histories where homeopathic anti-

Vintage vegan views


doting has cured many diseases (neuralgia, skin disorders, indigestion and constipation, warts and growths) originating from vaccination as well as his views on the subject. As a practicing vegan, I believe wholeheartedly in the precepts followed by those doctors practising in London’s Nature Cure Clinic where the wellbeing of the patient’s spiritual nature is respected and the treatment used does not violate the sanctity of life, of human beings or animals (vaccinations, innoculations or injections which involve preparations of animal origin are not used). Where fear is cast out, love pours in – so what have we to fear? If the illness itself – it may never happen! If it does – we all have our share of commonsense; there are doctors and healers who cure with natural methods; publishers stock books on many natural healing methods which help parents and friends who have faith in their own ability to cope with the situation; there are the spiritual healers and hand healers; where there are prayerful people, needs are satisfied. If rabies and cholera are raging in your district, common sense may dictate that wisdom lies in accepting innoculation against but the situation is a hypothetical one. Be positive, living as far as possible “in harmony with all life” and, if harm should come, seek help firstly from within oneself and from those doctors and healers of like mind. Your best prophylactic is a healthy blood stream, a clear conscience and a happy, loving environment. Eileen Scott
Response 2

lated by human beings, and rapidly de-habiting it though annihilation of numerous harmless animals, that have at least as much right to live on the planet as humans. Stuart North
Response 3

There is no doubt that Dr Stanton is correct in saying that millions of children’s’ lives have been saved by immunisations, but if we view life in its cold reality we can see that vaccinations and immunisations work against the forces of nature which dictate the survival of the fittest. The millions, who survive, only with the aid of medical technology, will develop into adults with poor health, a lack of resistance to infection, and dependent on “modern medicine” for their existence… I find it absurd that Dr. Stanton advocates the destruction of countless, no doubt millions of, “various creatures” around the world in order to save “millions of people”. This type of thinking is partly responsible for the world being vastly over-popu-

What right have we to assume that human life is more valuable than animals? Personally I am not remotely impressed by statistics about the numbers of people saved – the world is so grossly overpopulated is it not better that some should die of natural causes rather than the unnatural ones which are the result of modern lifestyles or even atomic war which is the inevitable outcome of over-population. Why are we so afraid of Nature? I believe it is because we have alienated ourselves so far from her. We give her human attributes like cruelty. Nature is not cruel, Nature is just Natural – only man is cruel, he invented it. My child is not vaccinated against anything – nor will the next one be. If disease comes her way she will have to fight as well as her strong healthy little body can. And if she should be taken I’d be as heartbroken as any mother but what right have I to put into her body the products of suffering on the off chance that this will happen and because I selfishly do not want my child to suffer or die. How much easier for me to have ignored my conscience and have her vaccinated when the nurse told me to! Even assuming the human aspect to be the most important I am doubtful if it can truly help someone to have their lives saved through the suffering of another poor creature. Personally I believe there is no better immunisation than good health. Evolution depends on the survival of the fittest. Our society manages to keep nearly everyone alive and as a result we are a race of feeble weaklings who have to rely on the suffering of innocent creatures in order to continue from day to day. Our society has corrupted the rest of the world with its ideas of human self-importance. We have spread our fear of pain and disease. I have heard that people in developing countries don’t place such a high value on life. Surely this is what Nature intended. I do not claim to be detached from fear of pain and loss of loved ones anymore than anyone else – I can just see that this is the way it should be. I am

Vintage vegan views


as much a product of man’s conceit as we all are but I believe we should try to bring up our children to an acceptance of the laws of Nature and to dispel the myth that Man is the centre of the universe. By the way, there is an organisation called the Hawey Foundation which advised me not to have my child vaccinated – their arguments (in purely human terms) sounded just as sound as the doctor quoted by James Okell. Lizzie Thorpe
Response 4

The basic error of orthodox medicine is the declared and totally illogical policy of suppressing symptoms, rather than removing the causes of illhealth… when symptoms automatically and in due course will disappear. Further, “germs” do not, and never did nor will cause disease. Such cannot proliferate and cause trouble (though often carried in our systems), unless the biological environment (the body fluids – particularly the arterial blood), offers a suitable medium. And by “germs” I mean micro-organisms thought to be hostile to good health which appear coincident with certain physical negative states. The correct policy in all physical healing is to regard the symptom as the body’s indication of a healing process currently being attempted whereby a basic cause is being externalised via the various organs of elimination. (Of such primary attempt, for example, is the common cold). Where symptoms are suppressed and the body prevented from achieving such natural elimination or externalisation, the cause is driven deeper and may lodge in more important and vital organs or tissues. Symptoms are something to be gently encouraged, not frustrated, so that Nature is assisted in her normal health-restoring processes. John Score
Response 5

tence”. A disease, however, whatever it is – is only the last, final manifestation of an imbalance, a sickening that starts in the soul of man, and works its way through to the body. Vaccination does often help man – as well as sometimes often making things worse – but the cosmic law of BALANCE will ensure that man will have a violent existence as long as he is violent to the rest of existence. Who can say whether it is better for a man or an animal to die? While we ponder that question nothing will change. Cease blaming the environment for harming you… Mark Thompson
Response 6

Modern man always blames external agents for his misfortunes, and seldom accepts the blame himself. Therefore, in the case of disease, he sees “existence” as something to barricade himself against. He takes out insurance policies against illness, vaccinates himself against anything he can and finds himself continually at war with the rest of “exis-

If I had my children immunised I know that I would be subjecting them to a known risk of death or permanent harm. Before I do this I would need much better proof than exists at present that it is of any value. I would also like to see long-term studies of vaccinated children to see whether they are more prone to cancer and other terrible diseases that now afflict children instead of older diseases which are easier to cure. We try to bring up our young children on a wholefood vegan diet, believing that this will promote health. Health is something positive and real which results from following the laws of nature and abiding by your conscience. Our task is not easy with sociable children in a wrongly orientated society. We are not wholly successful, yet our children are obviously healthier than the rest who fall prey to any bug that goes around. It is sad to see tiny babies ill from their jabs; their mothers anxious for them and to think that these innocent creatures, struggling to grow up, were actually injected with disease by well-meaning people. In about 8 years of veganism, I have never found any need to compromise on the basic principle. In fact I find that it fits in with all the other things I believe to be good and true, but it must be allied to the “wholefood” idea (food reform, nature cure, call it what you will) to maintain vigorous health. If you lived on only tea, sugar and whisky you could call yourself a vegan but you might not stay healthy for long, so please stick to wholefood recipes. Harry Mather

Vintage vegan views

Let’s all go anti-hunting!
Hunting with hounds has been with us countless years, but only since the Hunt Saboteurs Association was formed in 1963 has there been any direct action against hunting. Other organisations have tried to oppose hunting using methods such as petitions, demos, leaflets etc. I’m sure these people who only get petitions signed and hand off leaflets are well meaning but unfortunately the hunt still carries on killing our wildlife, while they are sitting around the fire signing leaflets and petitions etc.

Text: Gary Treadwell Reprinted from issue 9 of Vegan Views, 1976.


unt Saboteurs are sabotaging hunts all over the country using legal and non-violent methods, for example horn blowing, spraying smelly substances over the ground where the hunt are due to meet, the use of anti-mate spray, false hunting cries, and anything to cause confusion between the huntsman and his hounds which does not in any way cause injury to huntsman, hound or horse. Should you ever hear of anyone harming men, hounds or horses, rest assured it was not a hunt saboteur but probably a demented stupid moral using the Hunt Saboteurs Association as a shield for their perverted kicks. The British Field Sports Society claim anti-hunting groups are not effective but in the same breath introduce a fighting fund to defend bloodsports against us. One of their famous slogans is: “Hunting is your Heritage”. Hunting is your heritage! Is it my heritage? To chase a beast across the country and watch it being torn apart by hounds underfed by a hunt. Hunting is your heritage! Is it my heritage? To hire thugs to block fox holes up so the fox cannot take refuge from marauding hounds. Hunting is your heritage! Is it my heritage? To employ a digger so that when a fox is driven to a hole or drain it is dug out and thrown to hounds live when it should be killed humanely. Hunting is your heritage! Is it my heritage? To chase terrified stags over or out to sea, to delight with blood lust as an otter staggers out of a river to be mutilated and then killed by hounds whilst onlookers grin with perverted laughter.

If this is my heritage then I want to destroy it like I destroy filth! Yet people are willing to accept these wanton cruelties. It is so easy to bury one’s head in the sand. But I appeal to all vegans and vegetarians and so-called animal lovers to drop what you are doing and think “there’s an animal being hunted to death and I might have saved its life if I was there”. Surely if people make the effort to turn vegan or vegetarian they could get in touch with the Hunt Saboteurs Association and find out if they have a local group in their area. If not, start one up! And be a real activist, by fighting bloodsports in the field with other saboteurs. If you are put off by hunt violence don’t be! Hunt Saboteurs Association is completely non-violent and goes to all lengths to avoid it. Some saboteurs, however, are attacked by the hunt and followers. But if so-called animal lovers leave saboteurs to do all their dirty work for them and not be bothered to help out when needed then I feel they should postpone ANIMAL WELFARE YEAR until a lot of people get their fingers out and stop talking about how humane they are by not eating meat. There are a lot of flesh eaters in Hunt Saboteurs Association which could put a lot of vegetarians to shame when it comes to animal welfare. When will we see the day when all people involved in animal welfare stand up and be counted and work together for the animal’s sake if not ours? I feel like shouting “If you’re against hunting, why aren’t you out with the saboteurs?” By not helping people involved with saboteur you are not only letting down the real people who are concerned about animals but Animal Welfare as a whole. We all revolve around the same ideal. There are far too many bogus animal carers who’d rather sit at home and worry about their B12 content and organise little vegetarian parties for veggie people who all wear halos on their heads because they don’t eat meat, who browse around veggie shops buying Suma and Plamil etc, while far away on Exmoor a nice veggie stag has just had its throat slit after a hunt. Where were you then animal lover? An estimated 20,000 foxes die in the jaws of the hunt every year. Where were you then animal lover? Otters, one of Britain’s rarest animals, are hunted

Vintage vegan views


throughout the summer by 9 active packs of otterhounds. They have chased otters for up to 8 hours. Where were you then animal lover? Hares are slaughtered by packs of beagles and the hare which falls victim to the hare-coarser has its legs torn from its torso by two greyhounds while still

screaming with pain. Where were you? If you care for animals and have read this article and feel guilty and feel it’s about time you stopped sitting in your backside and want to save hunted animals contact the Hunt Saboteurs Association.

Minihorse as a pet?
Nicki Lynn breeds miniature horses on her ranch in Florida. The mini-horse is only 47cm in height and it has taken nearly 85 years of inbreeding to reach this accomplishment! Nicki thinks it would make a very sweet and suitable pet (!!!) and can be housetrained to use a sand tray like a cat!

Text: Dee Worth Reprinted from issue 11 Vegan Views, 1977.


icki says the most difficult thing about the mini-horse is that inbreeding made birth a very painful and complicated procedure for the mare. The pelvic cavity is so small that there is considerable risk for premature birth, and if the mare carries her foal full term there is hardly any room for her to push it out; many mares die in childbirth due to this physical abnormality. Nicki says she is really “hooked” on miniature animals. A friend of hers is breeding a miniature donkey which will be about 30cm high, and which she expects, to be born around Christmas. She has also ordered a miniature cow (!) which another acquaintance is breeding in North Dakota. (What about breeding mini-people – that would

solve a lot of problems in the world; I propose Nicki Lynn and her friends as first victims for experiments!)

Vintage vegan views


organisk hus
av jord og hamp!

Slik bygget jeg et

Bøker for salg!
Under finner du boklisten til Stiftelsen Markens Grøde. Hvis noen av bøkene faller i smak, gjør du lurt i å kjøpe de. Ta kontakt eller overfør rett beløp til bankkontoen.
Abonner på Semi-vegan!

Teresa Berubé

Bygg ditt eget

Liker du bladet du nå holder i hånden, bør du abonnere. Det koster kun 75 kr for 3 nummer.
Send kupongen til: Bankkonto:

Bygg ditt eget jordhus! Michael G. Smith


Det enkle og gode liv

Longridge, Bankend Road, Dumfries, DG1 4TP, UK.

0530 30 49616 (Konto-eier: Stiftelsen Markens Grøde)
E-post: 00 44 1387 265 348
Du kan lese boklisten her:
Tony Wrench

Helen og Scott Nearing

Under følger Stiftelsen Markens Grødes bokliste. Alle prisene inkluderer porto! Ønsker du noe så vennligst sett kryss ved det du ønsker.
o Abonnement på “The semi-vegan!” 3 nummer for 75 kr. (Nummer 2, 3 og 4) Bøker og hefter: (Alle prisene inkluderer porto!) o «Bygg ditt eget jordhus!» av Michael G. Smith for 198 kr. o «Bygg din egen jordovn!» av Kiko Denzer for 250 kr. (Få eks igjen!) o «Det enkle og gode liv» av Helen og Scott Nearing for 200 kr. o «Kunsten å gå på do…» av Joseph Jenkins for 175 kr. o «Slik bygget jeg mitt hjem av jord og hamp!» av Teresa Berubé for 48 kr. o «Bygg ditt eget kubbehus!» av Tony Wrench for 148 kr. o «Melk og honning» av John Seymour for 150 kr. o «Gutten på bomullsgården» av Merritt Mauzey for 100 kr. o «Bygg din egen husvogn!» av Walter Lloyd for 38 kr. o «Vegan Views/Self-sufficiency» bok på 224 sider: 75 kr. Mitt navn: Min adresse: Mitt postnr./poststed: Fast telefon: (Dag/kveld) Send kupongen til: Longridge, Bankend Rd, Dumfries, DG1 4TP, UK. E-post:

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful