Skeptical Thought Easily Bought: Pandering to the Elites

Everyday capitalism on a global scale gives wealth to the few, while oppressing others—to the point of torture in the case of nonhuman animals and even humans in some regions. It is responsible for the gargantuan scale of animal suffering and abuse that has become the norm today. And it all began with agriculture.

As David Nibert points out, “for the past ten thousand years those who were vulnerable to some form of materially motivated exploitation have become the stepping stones for what is euphemistically referred to as ‘the development of civilized society’.”[1]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 51. The rise of agricultural societies led to the stratified oppression and marginalized of targeted humans or nonhumans, which was “motivated by material interest—the creation and hoarding of privilege.”[2]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 26. Nonhumans and oppressed humans were assigned lower social positions, which were eventually seen as an inevitable part of a natural order. Over time, “lowly positions and ill treatment were woven into the fabric of the economic, political, religious, and social systems and thus institutionalized.”[3]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 27. Ideological thought, constructed by and in line with these systems, helped in rationalizing and normalizing them as ideologies of oppression that perpetuated exploitation.

Prejudices—racism or speciesism, for example—have been ideologically driven in the interest of dominating groups, as a “tool of oppression and not its cause.”[4]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 16. With the legitimizing of social laws and mores, and frequently with the support and protection of state powers, the elites had an easier time becoming wealthy on the backs of animal and human slaves. And today, despite elites having to maneuvering behind more complicated social perceptions and laws, it is certainly no different for nonhumans animals or even humans on minimum wage—or in the way, for instance, of an Amazon logging company.

In place of the old systems of belief are new forms of belief based on capitalistic ethics and cultural behaviors promoted as natural and right. These beliefs are inculcated in early childhood according to sociologist Deidre Wick, who, like Nibert, examines silence and denial surrounding nonhuman animal suffering from a sociological point of view. In her paper “Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering,” she puts in clear terms a critical point that many skeptics never question outside of a religious context:

We are not born with a ready-made schema telling us what is edible and what is not, but rather it is part of a highly structured belief system. This system allows us to consume certain animals without experiencing any emotional or psychological discomfort.”[5]Deidre Wicks, “Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering,” Animals, 1 (2011), 186-199, doi:10.3390/ani1010186.

We are not born with a normalization of nonhuman animal suffering. It is not innate but is learned with all the tolerance, accommodations, and collusions of a particular social background in support. It is acquired through cultural conditioning along with states of denial.

Children, Wicks explains, are told versions of the truth about animal killing with an implicit subtext that it is not something to be talked about deeply, or very often, especially not at the table (vegans are very familiar with this concept around adults). The animal remains unmentioned and unnoticed under the labels given to its parts—it’s “cutlets,” for example. These are words that effectively mirror the perception of animal body parts as nothing more than commodities.[6]A point also made in David Nibert, Animal Oppressions and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 6. Three important influences that Wicks breaks down as perpetuating forces of denial are elites, industries, and the media. The elites can set the agenda of what populations pay attention to, industries control what populations will tolerate, and mass media directs attention to and from specific issues.

The pervasive, detrimental influences of elites, especially their affects upon those with the least protections and most to lose, have received much analysis and scholarship. It is no surprise to see that what applies to marginalized and oppressed human groups also applies, perhaps even more intensely, to nonhuman animals.

Elites in Control

No one doubts that the rich are different. Those who have live among them bear testimony. Chris Hedges observes that the elites, the “oligarchic class,” as he calls them, have a public image that little resembles their private reality. They live on another plain, where the wide manipulation and manufacturing of thought, not open to the rest of us beyond immediate relations, is a real possibility.

Oligarchs… are schooled in the mechanisms of manipulation, subtle and overt repression and exploitation to protect their wealth and power at our expense. Foremost among their mechanisms of control is the control of ideas. Ruling elites ensure that the established intellectual class is subservient to an ideology—in this case free market capitalism and globalization—that justifies their greed.[7]Chris Hedges, “Let’s Get This Class War Started,” Truthdig, Oct 20, 2013, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/lets_get_this_class_war_started_20131020/.

The decisions and behaviors of the elites are based on self-licensing, privilege and entitlement, decisions often to perpetuate unchecked exploitation and plunder for themselves.

Supporting these contentions are what many of us know through experience, studies provide an insight into the hypocrisies and mentality of the privileged. One study published as “Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor,” finds that the rich are less likely to be community oriented, more likely to make decisions based on their own internal states, and less likely to be compassionate or have empathy:

increased resources and fewer external constraints—play out in the day-to-day thoughts and actions of upper-class individuals… create what we call solipsistic social cognitive tendencies among upper-class individuals.[8]Michael W. Kraus, Paul K. Piff, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Michelle L. Rheinschmidt, Dacher Keltner, “Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor,” Psychological Review, Vol. 119: 3 (July 2012), 550; doi: 10.1037/a0028756.

Some of the same scholars, Michael Kraus and Dacher Keltner, take a further look at social class essentialism in another study.[9]Michael W. Kraus and Dacher Keltner, “Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 105:2 (August 2013), 247-261. Essentialism is when those with privilege falsely perceive superficial aspects of a less privileged group as related to innate qualities, such as genetics. Yes, such a mentality does look a bit like social Darwinism. The picture that emerges of elites is of people out of touch and making decisions based on a distorted worldview, while harboring deep prejudices against those they perceive as inferior. As Kraus writes, if the wealthy happen to be in politics, they are likely to have an essentialistic mentality, and yet these are the very people who have the power to enact laws that maintain inequalities.

If not within politics, the elites do what they can to influence politics or cultural ideologies in their favor, giving themselves license to behave less morally than others. In another study on what is essentially self-licensing behavior, titled “Power Increases Hypocrisy: Moralizing in Reasoning, Immunity and Behavior,” by researchers at Northwestern University in Illinois, people in power were found to be stricter about morals in general but not as strict on their own behavior.“[10]Judge not lest ye be judged? Researchers explore ‘moral hypocrisy’ in powerful people,” Phys.org, December 29, 2009, http://phys.org/news181311436.html.

Elites must exert control, writes Nibert, over “public perceptions and opinion, disparaging those most victimized by oppressive arrangements and portraying them as somehow deserving of their fate.”[11]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 188. This is a form of ideological control. As with colonialism in the past, today’s economically driven injustices are more easily maintained with such supportive ideologies.

Identifying out groups appeals to baser instincts of self-interest in others and is one way for elites to solicit support and agreement. The ideological controls exerted over devalued others are subtle but not so when it comes to nonhuman animals, where the legitimation of exploitation and mistreatment is not only nakedly evident and undisguised, but also largely supported by a public. Everyone accepts it as normal, blind to the ethical implications and the role they are playing according to someone else’s script:

the entangled nature of the oppression of humans and other animals not only has deep economic root, supported by a powerful state apparatus, but also has considerable public support among a citizenry raised in a society in which powerful corporations exert extraordinary control over beliefs and values.[12]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 196.

Necessarily, empathy and compassion are “compromised and neutralized by economic, political, and belief systems that glorify private wealth and promote egotism.”[13]David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 197. What are simple examples of manufactured ideologies? Various forms of classism, racism, sexism or ethnocentrism in the case of humans; and anthropocentrism, of course, in the case of nonhuman animals.

Oppression is not seen by those in positions of privileged because they are the ones doing it. The kicker is that many of them do not see that they are doing it, either. The workings of the world around them are simply just “normality.”

The privileged elite, flush with their sense of entitlement, rarely have concern for nonhuman animals, least of all those elites profiting from mass slaughter. It is as George Nicholson saw and described long ago in On the Conduct of Man to Inferior Animals (1797):

From men of imperious temper, inflated by wealth, devoted to sensual gratifications, and influenced by fashion, no share of humanity can be expected. He who is capable of enslaving his own species, of treating the inferior ranks of them with contempt or austerity, and who can be unmoved by their misfortunes, is a man formed of the materials of a cannibal, and will exercise his temper on the lower orders of animal life with inflexible obduracy… Even persons of more gentle natures, having long been initiated in corrupt habits, do not readily listen to sensations of feeling; or, if the principles of justice, mercy, and tenderness be admitted, such principles are merely theoretical, and influence not their conduct.[14]George Nicholson, On the Conduct of Man to Inferior Animals (London: George Nicholson, 1819), 259.

The significant analogous relationship we arrive at is this: the mentality of elites towards other people resembles the mentality of most people toward nonhuman animals.

This analogy is nothing new, as many of you will recognize, and is the basis of Orwell’s Animal Farm. Orwell explicitly states the analogy in a preface in the Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm, where he explains the central metaphor of the book; hat is, “Men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.” And it hardly needs to be said that Animal Farm is something of an introduction to 1984, a book in which workers’ lives are completely controlled and manipulated with ideologies. Orwell knew that “whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them.” The mistreatment and total management of nonhumans resembles a totalitarian system and the oppressors are the human public.

Those who complain about elites, then, are often no different in the way they behave toward nonhumans. They treat animals with the same solipsistic mindset that elites treat the rest of us. When it comes to animals, humans are the totalitarian masters and manipulators.

Yet few skeptics who step back and examine the machinations of the elites and their self-serving ideologies appear to recognize this analogous relationship and their part in nonhuman animal exploitation. Nor do they examine what aspects of their own behavior towards nonhuman animals are not really under their own guidance. In not being skeptical in this direction, they become cohorts in the capitalist adventure. And if you live by the sword, you die by it.

Skeptics should be alert to the signs of their own denial and the manipulations of the elites, for if not, they will end up in collusion. “The collusion of the bystander,” observes Wicks, “empowers either an individual or whole organizations and economies to continue to inflict pain and suffering on animals on a monumental scale.”[15]Deidre Wicks, “Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering,” Animals, 1 (2011), 186-199, doi:10.3390/ani1010186. Those who do the bidding of corporate powers have often internalized the totalitarian mentality as a means to satisfy self-centered desires or to fit into the capitalist slipstream. They have absorbed its rules like everyone else, most often unconsciously through cultural instructors of language, advertising, hype, falsehoods, propaganda, and of course religion.

Everything is identified as a commodity and the reality behind it is contrived to remain invisible. Angela Davis, the American political activist and scholar, pointed out in a talk, “most people don’t think about the tremendous suffering that those animals endure simply to become food”—there is no critical engagement, no critical thinking by the vast major of people about the suffering inflicted by industries of exploitation:

the lack of critical engagement with the food that we eat demonstrates the extent to which the commodity form has become the primary way in which we perceive the world…The fact that we can sit down and eat a piece of chicken without thinking about the horrendous conditions under which chickens are industrially bred in this country is a sign of the dangers of capitalism, how capitalism has colonized our minds.[16]Quoted in Jon Hochschartner, “Vegan Angela Davis Connects Human and Animal Liberation,” CounterPunch (January 24-26, 2014), http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/24/vegan-angela-davis-connects-human-and-animal-liberation/.

We “look no further than the commodity itself,” Davis points out, “we refuse to understand the relationships that underlie the commodities that we use.” The oblivious and unskeptical will quite happily treat nonhuman animals with cruelty and neglect, directly or indirectly, and not even realize it, or if they do, not care because they have been easily bought off.

Lack of skeptical rigor, the tendency to selectively apply critical thinking, which appears to be a hallmark even of proclaimed and vocal skeptics, enables the injustices and suffering to continue.

The Meat Grinder

Capitalism is the new dominion, replacing religious law and yet essentially not that different in terms of the treatment of nonhumans. The architects of the industrialization of animals as commodities have a long history of efficient transporting, processing and packaging out of public view, beyond the reaches of inspection, and thus ensuring the separation of reality from their dressed, sanitized products. It was as William Cronon writes in his Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, about the profound ecological and economic transformations that took place in the nineteenth century American West, the connections between people and the reality of where meat came from “vanished from easy view.” Through “managerial strategies” and the commodification of meat,

it was easy not to remember that eating was a moral act inextricably bound to killing. Such was the second nature that a corporate order had imposed on the American landscape. Forgetfulness was among the least noticed and most important of its by-products.[17]William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991), 256, as quoted in Alexander Cockburn, “A Short Meat-Oriented History of the World from Eden to the Mattole,” New Left Review (Jan/Feb, 1996).

Such was the “packer’s triumph” to alienate meat from its origins. For a time, the public could still view the hellish “disassembly” lines of Chicago, and many documented what they saw, but none had the impact of Upton Sinclair’s record in his novel The Jungle.

They had done nothing to deserve it; and it was adding insult to injury, as the thing was done here, swinging them up in this cold-blooded, impersonal way, without a pretense of apology, without the homage of a tear. Now and then a visitor wept, to be sure; but this slaughtering machine ran on, visitors or no visitors. It was like some horrible crime committed in a dungeon, all unseen and unheeded, buried out of sight and of memory.[18]Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 30.

Sinclair recognized the common enemy of industrial capitalism for both human and nonhuman animals. His “humble-minded Jurgis,” the novel’s main character, lacked that critical thinking and remains oblivious to the manipulations of the meat industry. Like the animals it sends to their doom, he and his family, are put through the same meat grinder of industrial commodification.

To Jurgis the packers had been equivalent to fate; Ostrinski showed him that they were the Beef Trust. They were a gigantic combination of capital, which had crushed all opposition, and overthrown the laws of the land, and was preying upon the people… What they wanted from a hog was all the profits that could be got out of him; and that was what they wanted from the workingman, and also that was what they wanted from the public. What the hog thought of it, and what he suffered, were not considered; and no more was it with labor, and no more with the purchaser of meat. That was true everywhere in the world, but it was especially true in Packingtown.[19]Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 296.

Some of what Sinclair described is much the same now, only more sophisticated and disguised—the meat industry still relies on government as it is “one of its branch offices,” utilizes billions of liters water, dictates to the courts to silence people, does what it can to prevent transparency and inspection, and flaunts and violates the paltry laws against it.[20]Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 297. Sinclair’s Jurgis is an everyman of the public, docile and ignorant.

Little appears to have changed since then. If anything, the lack of critical thinking is worse in the public of today. Often, it seems, it is out of choice, while the animal product corporations and government pull one over with ease.

The Great Butcher

As mentioned before, part of the reason why people ignore animal suffering is because capitalist thinking is internalized. It becomes the rationalization for actions and behavior. Since almost everyone has a vested interest in maintaining a meat supply, it remains unquestioned. The meat industry is still the same as Sinclair saw it, “it was the Great Butcher—it was the spirit of Capitalism made flesh.” Sure, animal cruelty is considered wrong in a civilized society. But invariably, the major use of animals for food “runs afoul of the moral principle that we all claim to accept: that we should not impose harm on animals if there is a feasible alternative,” writes Gary Francione.[21]Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Temple Univ Pr, 2000), 17. Nonhuman animals are doomed by the hypocrisy of predetermined use. Billions of them are bred every year by humans for killing:

by bringing these animals into existence for uses that we would never consider appropriate for any humans—by having a “meat” industry or an “animal entertainment” industry or a “game animal” industry—we have already decided that nonhuman animals are outside the scope of our moral community altogether…. We have already decided that animals have no inherent moral status whatsoever—whatever we say to the contrary.[22]Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Temple Univ Pr, 2000), 153.

Everyone is in on it. Most see no wrong with this—of those who even think about it, and human interests always prevail. And it seems not to matter the number of times this is pointed out. Speciesism remains because everyone yields to the nonhuman animals as commodities. Everyone participates in the tyranny for their own trivial interests. Peter Singer writes,

Most human beings are speciesists…. ordinary human beings—not a few exceptionally cruel or heartless humans, but the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species.[23]Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002), 9.

Not something to be proud of. This tyranny is allowed to continue disguised as a natural entitlement because laws, social and religious mores, the influences of the elites, and corporate and government promotions make sure that is how it is perceived. This is how a tyranny is hidden out in the open. This is how blinkered complicity is bought.

One of the first authors to expose the evils of factory farming identified the hypocrisy at work:

In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned, and once large sums of money are at stake, it will be defended to the end by otherwise intelligent people.[24]Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966), 175.

Despite the impact Harrison’s book had in Britain, despite what she detailed being reiterated again and again to this day, the so-called “intelligent people” of secular and nonsecular communities have apathetically ignored it or willfully chosen ignorance. Either way, they have been compliant and complicit—reminding us of Moby Dick’s Ishmael: “when a man suspects any wrong, it sometimes happens that if he be already involved in the matter, he insensibly strives to cover up his suspicions even from himself… to think nothing.”

It is no excuse that formidable influences help to keep people in what author David Orr describes as “a perpetual state of infantile self-gratification as dependable and dependent consumers rather than as informed, active, engaged, and thoughtful citizens.”[25]David Orr, Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 50. Those who are willing to go along have their decisions made for them by external manipulators, as David Robinson Simon notes in his book Meatonomics. Eating choices are made for us by manipulative and false corporate marketing, by the passing of over a hundred laws that prevent criticisms and investigations but allow cruelty, and by maintaining artificially low meat and dairy prices.[26]David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much—and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter (Conari Press, 2013), xv-xviii. On top of it all, external costs such as environmental destruction and health care are passed on to society—add these real costs to animal products at the till and they would triple in price.[27]David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much—and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter (Conari Press, 2013), xx, xxv.

Those oh-so-rigorous skeptics, the majority that cannot be bothered with this topic or to look into the issues discussed here, need to reassess the scope of their critical thinking. Because if they don’t, they may not realized they are paying for it in more ways than one.

Notes   [ + ]

1. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 51.
2. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 26.
3. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 27.
4. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 16.
5. Deidre Wicks, “Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering,” Animals, 1 (2011), 186-199, doi:10.3390/ani1010186.
6. A point also made in David Nibert, Animal Oppressions and Human Violence: Domesecration, Capitalism, and Global Conflict (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013), 6.
7. Chris Hedges, “Let’s Get This Class War Started,” Truthdig, Oct 20, 2013, http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/lets_get_this_class_war_started_20131020/.
8. Michael W. Kraus, Paul K. Piff, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, Michelle L. Rheinschmidt, Dacher Keltner, “Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor,” Psychological Review, Vol. 119: 3 (July 2012), 550; doi: 10.1037/a0028756.
9. Michael W. Kraus and Dacher Keltner, “Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 105:2 (August 2013), 247-261.
10. Judge not lest ye be judged? Researchers explore ‘moral hypocrisy’ in powerful people,” Phys.org, December 29, 2009, http://phys.org/news181311436.html.
11. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 188.
12. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 196.
13. David Nibert, Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and Liberation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002), 197.
14. George Nicholson, On the Conduct of Man to Inferior Animals (London: George Nicholson, 1819), 259.
15. Deidre Wicks, “Silence and Denial in Everyday Life—The Case of Animal Suffering,” Animals, 1 (2011), 186-199, doi:10.3390/ani1010186.
16. Quoted in Jon Hochschartner, “Vegan Angela Davis Connects Human and Animal Liberation,” CounterPunch (January 24-26, 2014), http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/24/vegan-angela-davis-connects-human-and-animal-liberation/.
17. William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991), 256, as quoted in Alexander Cockburn, “A Short Meat-Oriented History of the World from Eden to the Mattole,” New Left Review (Jan/Feb, 1996).
18. Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 30.
19. Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 296.
20. Upton Sinclair, The Jungle: The Uncensored Original Edition (Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press, 2003), 297.
21. Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Temple Univ Pr, 2000), 17.
22. Gary Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Temple Univ Pr, 2000), 153.
23. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (New York: Ecco, 2002), 9.
24. Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966), 175.
25. David Orr, Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 50.
26. David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much—and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter (Conari Press, 2013), xv-xviii.
27. David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much—and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter (Conari Press, 2013), xx, xxv.

Vegetarian/Vegan Starter PDFs

starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter
starter