What has been defined as the war on animals is not going to prevail over its "animal rights" opposition if their methods entailing the dissemination of information are in keeping with the need to put an end to the war on animals.  By method I mean the strategy, and tactics used, and by information I mean the realities upon which strategy, and tactics must be predicated, which  can be defined as the logic of success.
                   
      Such realities includes the fact that the animal rights movement is involved in the ubiquitous struggle for power that must be distinguished from the power that polities seek.
The power sought by the former is legitimate power, whose purpose is the ascendance of moral and legal change on behalf of the animal kingdom that must be distinguished from the power sought as a means of domination, or armed aggression.

    Such moral and legal  change must be predicated upon the goal of "animal liberation," broadly defined to include the ultimate repudiation of the unjust status of animals as human property.  

    Victory over a powerful, and well entrenched adversary consisting of the omnivorous majority, and habitual exploiters of animals, must of necessity be a piecemeal process whereby each gain means a reduction of misery and pain and the premature death of animals.

    The belief that  'moral and legal  change'  will  evolve from prayer or wishing can't be affirmed or refuted, but as with other great social transitions must have the necessary cause such as popular support.  But popular support can't occur in a context in which many,  perhaps the majority of people are not aware of the germane facts. By germane facts I mean the dreadful results of the human exploitation of animals entailing continuous suffering,  pain and premature death. 

   Contrary to what is often cited, the root cause of such vileness is not the unregenerate nature of people, but lies in several factors.  A non exhaustive account includes the all pervasive influence of habit that is either the best of servants or the worst of masters, and quite obviously a causal factor. Another is the lack of interest, and temperament that make some people blind to the results of their blindness. And there is that god  of  fools;  money, that has enriched so many that benefit from the torture and death of animals. Religion too must be included in this villainous gallery, which must not include all religions or people of the cloth. "I would give nothing for that man's religion, whose very dog and cat are not the better for it."*

     The world is a matrix of change, and a "right question" would be: Are the people of America now willing to change their lifestyles, and abort their small minded attitudes and conduct? The answer to this question is implicit in the tens of thousands of animals killed by hunters every year, and the billions of animals killed for food, and acceptance of our factory farms, and the millions of animals that are brutalized in American laboratories and barbarous fur farms each year. The people of America, however, are a heterogeneous lot consisting of a plethora of people opposed to the tyrannizing  of animals, and constantly striving, and succeeding to bring about change. That the elusive dramatic change has not yet occurred can be attributed to the absence of enough people power employing the necessary means.   

      The means employed as here suggested must be in keeping with the magnitude of the objective, which can be defined as a moral and legal change without precedent. It will not do, however, to think in terms of going from barbarism to a new world order for the animals in the foreseeable future, it may take decades. Progress toward the objective will be in proportion to the prudent effort generated by a growing force, entailing a progressive transmission from one reform to another, during which animals are still brutalized and killed. 

The question to now be answered is: What is the nature of the here suggested method? 
The idea is of ancient origin: the dissemination of truth.  It was via a website and the internet that I tried to inform, explain, rouse emotions, and stimulate new ways of thinking about the plight of animals due to the savagery of man. I have used this method since April 2001and as of the week of  8/20/2006 to 8/26/2006 received 120,384  hits to the site.

I can't evaluate the response beyond saying that the respondents were exposed to, and informed of facts that should be made public. And that human brutality of which they had no, or little knowledge, as well as conduct that they were aware of, could in some way affect them as their conduct could affect others. Because  history is not a chain of unrelated events falling within unique settings, but much of a continuum in which change is contingent upon a cause that had a cause ad infinitum. 
My objective opinion is that if the means as here suggested are properly used by say, 2000 or more people with an interest in justice for animals, human or non human, a change of unprecedented dimensions for the good will occur as a result of their labors.                                                      
  J. B. Suconik

*Rowland Hill   English preacher  1744-1833