This is the Typical AR Mentality

Article

It's like Mat Sitte wanted to act out the AR program in his own home:

For an instant, he stood and watched as the flames circled her body then engulfed her.

"I could feel the heat of the fire. I could smell the flesh burning ... I stay a few seconds and say a prayer to set her soul free," he said. Suddenly, he said, he realized he forgot to get the kids' three pet rabbits out of their bedrooms.

"I ran upstairs and got two cages and brought them outside. Then I ran back in to get the third one," he said. "The heat was pretty intense. On my way back downstairs I hear a big bang. And I see the kitchen floor collapse and I realize it's time for me to get out of there. I barely get out alive ... then I grab my bottle of rum and sit across the street and watch the fire."

I'm Sorry About "Tiger Lily"

I am sorry that a kitten was cruelly burned to death in an oven. I feel bad for the kitten who screamed its life out in intolerable heat, not only frightened by the pain and heat but by the loss of trust in its humans. Her screams may haunt me for the rest of my life even though I can only imagine them (thank God that I can only imagine). This hurts someone very much who loves animals more than he loves himself. So I love property more than myself, especially living property, so sue me. They happen to be more lovable than I am.

Still, I do not support felony animal abuse charges against Cheyenne Cherry who has confessed to the killing of that kitten. I will admit that I'm tempted. Who wouldn't want someone like that thrown in jail and the key lost?

I would think that whoever has been following the crimes committed by the HSUS against animal owners and breeders would want them jailed and the key lost. They have been very cruel to the commercial breeder who they recently busted in Indiana, on the pretext that they weren't paying sales taxes. They and other so-called humane organizations use felony animal abuse charges to force people to hand over their own property, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth. Those charges are obviously bogus if they can be bought out. Even worse, in this case they also took the property that was to be held for a tax lien, so there's even more corruption than usual.

Felony property damage I will support. The Bronx teenager broke into someone's apartment and burned valuable property, so that's also arson. Animals are property and we're better for it. Owners do not get charged with ridiculous crimes for ridiculous reasons and face ridiculous penalities if their cars are dirty. Yet. We can kill and eat our own property and the HSUS wants to take that right away from us as they want to take away our right to keep pets humanely. Felony property damage kicks in when someone who does not own the property damages or destroys it. That protects the owner and the animal. Current laws have failed to protect owners from bogus charges leveled by AR-infested humane organizations and a good felony property damage/felony theft under color of law regulation, if followed, would put a lot of those people in jail where they belong. Some of them have done worse than Cheyenne Cherry did. Some of the so-called humane organizations have killed a lot of valuable lives, more than any other abusers that I know of.

Give the HSUS Nothing

The HSUS has succeeded in costing California farmers billions of dollars for their "Proposition 2" that has the government spending money it can't afford to micromanage farmers and force them to spend money that they can't afford. They are basically repealing the science of mass production of animal products and replacing it with whatever. Who wants a cage-free egg after it's rolled around a concrete floor picking up chicken droppings? How about an infant mortality rate for pork producers that exceeds fifty percent? I guess we're going to have to like them apples, 'cause we ain't going to be able to afford pork chops. Raising the price of our food places the interests of animals ahead of the interests of humans.

They want to bring this crap to Ohio. They want to "negotiate." What is there to negotiate about? Giving up less to the HSUS? They are entitled to less than nothing. They should have to pay massive fines for the damage that they've already done. The only thing that they should be "given" is a massive investigation of its fraudulent charitable collecting, which diverts money from legitimate animal-based charities.

The HSUS went around killing animals in their euthanasia van during the Katrina crisis. They have a convicted terrorist on their payroll. He earned his qualifications both by acting as a publicity agent for the terrorist group Animal Liberation Front and by committing terrorist acts on U.S. soil. This is also a point because such actions make it so that legal businesses, legal businesspeople, legal workers in every animal related field are not safe even when they are in compliance with the law. John Goodwin's employment by the HSUS is a large stinking mess of proof that the HSUS uses people who disrespect our legal rights. I'm glad they hired him.

Is there actually something wrong with pet ownership that makes it so that owners of pets have to mind everyone else's business? It's not something wrong with pet ownership. It's a bad mental habit that people get into. They worry too much about the negatives and blow them out of proportion. Of course that attaches to pet ownership and everything else. It narrows a person's comfort zone to that which she or he can control. Maybe it's narcissistic and maybe narcissism is an inevitable result of casting one's self as the hero who can remove all negatives from life. So what's wrong with taking positives and amplifying on them? The love that a person can have for his dog makes it easy to forgive messes and broken screen doors. A love of humanity makes it easy to forgive someone whose worst crime is caring too much.

An Animal Rights-ish Feeling

I have to admit that I like most animals better than I like most humans. When there is a quandary between saving an animal and a human, I don't always have a clear answer. Maybe I'd save the animal because I can eat the animal. Those questions don't answer the big question as well as how I live my life in real life.

Why would I want people to keep pets and livestock if I think that animals are better than humans? Part of the reason is because I don't think that better in some ways means better in all ways. Also, even if an animal or human is better in all ways, we can still associate and live and play together. They're really good at putting on their best to be with their humans and that's why they will always make us feel as if they are better people.

Love and happiness are resources. These are resources that humans provide for animals.Love is something that humans seem to be uniquely able to be good at in the company of an animal, largely because of something that I tried to explain earlier. A companion animal relationship is based on shared love, happiness, and pleasure. Farmers who keep livestock and draft animals also find that kind of relationship.

An animal that might have been doomed to a lonely search for the rare morsel of food, and that would have starved to death if it didn't, can find a precious resource in humans. Wild deer, bears, and raccoons routinely beg for food, or steal it, or scavenge it from humans because humans are good at getting food and often have a lot of it.

Even if animals are better than humans, smell better, are more pleasant to the touch, are happier beings filled with more light, are somehow morally or ethically better, they have uses for us and they love us. Nature produces an animal that can do everything that requires technical expertise simply because nature accretes genetic and outside-world information and that's how to deal with it, to produce a brain that can process this information in practical ways. Of course the other animals that are part of nature want a part of this. They have curiosity, even a sort of intellectual curiosity. They helped make us. They definitely have a right to share.

Never Cry "Cruelty"

In his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism, in the last chapter which is titled On Natural Work-Democracy, Wilhelm Reich wrote a very good illustrative story of fair versus unfair criticism.

Here it is briefly: Imagine that an engineer has to repair a large engine that his factory needs by the next day. He's working well into the late evening. One person comes along and just smashes wires to be doing it because his wife nagged him earlier. The next one gives the engineer a pile of nonsense about how he's doing it wrong, tells him he's filthy (from working on the engine), and that he's immoral for abandoning his family that evening. Number two knows nothing about repairing engines. The third one had a hard time with his mother-in-law and spits in the engineer's face. Reich says that they are like highwaymen who disturb honest work. Does that sound familiar? This was written at the beginning of the establishment of the Third Reich in Germany, when a bunch of animal rights activists/ environmentalists took over a more or less democratic country and we know what they did with it.





The next person who comes along is another engineer who rolls up his sleeves and pitches in and helps. He knows the work and in the story he spots a mistake that he helps correct, and is POLITE, something that the activists are quite incapable of being.

Compare this to the kind of personal experiences that either teach a person when it is appropriate to be critical or prove that the would-be critic used his brains first. One example was when I was at a stable and a horse in a small round pipe enclosure without food and water begged me to give him some food. Using my brains and my own experience I realized that the horse was a valuable animal and if he was being "starved" it was for a reason. He might have gotten into the sacked feed and was being treated to prevent laminitis. He might have been due for a visit to the veterinarian and needed to be kept from food and water for a prescribed time. The most important thing to realize was that most likely the owner knew what he was doing and I didn't. The horse looked like he was in very good shape, too.

I've seen dirty houses and yards that had dogs that were reasonably clean, healthy, quite well-fed, and free of fleas and disease. This could be genuinely objectionable but it's a home and they're happy and cared for. On the balance it is still good and if I want better I should be willing to pitch in and help. I have done this before and if I were someone who would cry "cruelty" instead of cleaning Edward Taub's laboratory like I volunteered to do, I don't belong around the animals and I don't belong there because I'm either clueless or malicious. In other words, I should be like the engineer who goes in and helps to the best of his ability. Even if I didn't know much he might need another set of hands, maybe someone to bring in drinks and a snack and so on, but to me someone who helps does so by actually helping. A real helper has to be trustworthy, honest, and polite. He has to serve. He has to be truly tolerant. He has to be respectful.

The Danger of the Animal Rights Movement

Yes, they actually intend to kill off at least a substantial fraction of humanity. Yes, they intend to do it by fair means and by foul. Yes, they want everyone who doesn't like them dead, preferably painfully. The first principles of animal rights activism include the idea that humans should voluntarily choose extinction to protect the lives of other animals.

If you watch their statements on Internet forums and in print, they actually say it. In conversations face to face or avatar to avatar they actually lie about it even when they know that you're read what they wrote. Some of the lies are like "I didn't actually mean it that way." How did they mean it when they said nine tenths of humanity should die, or that the owner of a dog should die horribly?

What is the meaning of a message like this?

"Rest in peace my Angel.
Schuler you ****ing bastard I pray to god that your time is soon and that you burn in hell! " Pretty clear, isn't it? This one was about a dog who the vet and the humane society checked and was doing just fine.

Here's another good one:

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
-- Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

Proud sponsor of Jane Goodall, by the way.

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
-- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations

"Among environmentalists sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the entire human race, other species might once again have a chance."
-- Richard Conniff, Audubon Magazine

More environmentalists, but the movements are not separate now if they ever were. There are a lot of quotes at the "Target of Opportunity" website.

These people warn us of the danger of "exotic" pets and some domesticated pets. They use the warnings as leverage, the danger as a trump card, to pry our animals, our property, away from us, for public disuse without compensation. This also is part of a plan to eliminate humanity from the picture.

It's a form of suicide. It's common knowledge that they're angry with humanity for messing up the world, and for doing what other animals do: exist, use our brains, eat what we need to eat, and change the environment to be more useful to us. Ironically humans are animals so you can't hate humans without somehow hating animals and life. All the warnings that we've tainted them, that we shouldn't have them living with us, they are aimed at killing the bond between humans and animals, denying the animals the benefits of relationships with humans, and denying humans the life that we share with the animals.

When they are banning particular animals as pets, they deny homes to those animals. This matters because in doing this they prevent people from repairing or mitigating the damage that they are so upset about. It would cut into their charitable donations if it came out that owners of pets and livestock had created a larger, more stable population of non-human animals than would have existed without them, with greater safety, using fewer government hand-outs and bail-outs. The conservationists risk the extinction of a lot of species by attempting to end private ownership, and the best thing for increasing the number of a species is to make it a commodity that people will buy. This is at least as good a deal as unassisted nature provides.

The bottom line is that it seems like we could come pretty close to saying that the average environmentalist/animal rights activist is more dangerous to more humans, individually, than all of the exotic and domesticated pets on the entire planet. You might be able to count the livestock too. This is if you count animals as a danger, just for the sake of the argument. The truth is that animals are by far of net benefit to humanity, and humanity is of net benefit to the animals. Thus it is beyond doubt that every single animal rights activist is more dangerous to humanity than all pets and livestock. They don't want humanity to save the planet. They want humanity to die out and save the planet by not being here.

No Animal Holocaust

Reprinted with the author's permission.

by Teresa Austringer

No, absolutely not.

Let's examine the meaning of the word holocaust. A holocaust is described in the dictionary as a great disaster, resulting in mass death, often in fire. To be more true to the ordinary usage of the word, the holocaust is a reference to the mass extermination of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and others during World War II.

Animal rights proponents, from Isaac Singer's famous quote about the animal's eternal Treblinka, to the ill conceived and abandoned ad campaign by PETA, like to use the word holocaust and even the images and descriptions of the Holocaust to make people feel guilty about consuming meat. As a means of inducing shame it may be effective. Unfortunately the usage in propaganda is also painful and demeaning to those who have suffered, who are descended from, or share characteristics with those who were harmed or killed in the actual Holocaust. Indeed, the comparison is a slap in the face of humanity as a whole. It is akin to the common axiom in any argument where anyone who disagrees with someone tends to get called a Nazi. It's a good sign that an argument has reached the stone wall beyond where reason no longer applies.

But why, besides the fact that comparing chickens to people tends not to elevate the chicken's rights, but reduces the person's, is it inaccurate? Simple. If six billion broiler chickens are killed every year, as Ingrid Newkirk claims, there is still no shortage of broiler chickens. The Nazis did not call the Holocaust a holocaust, they called it the 'Final Solution'. The disenfranchisement of Jews, followed by the removal from German society, led to the final solution of mass extermination. The purpose was to eliminate an entire race from the human species.

There is no conspiracy to eliminate broiler chickens. Animals that are raised for food are sheltered, fed, bred, and given medical care. The reproductive and evolutionary strategies of their forebears were to be food for predators, so they are living a far more comfortable life with more assured reproductive success than they would in the wild.

There is no hatred involved in people's use of animals. We don't wish them ill, or despise them for being what they are. We don't blame them for our problems.

Other comparisons could be used, such as the number of people killed in war, or car crashes, or who die of lung cancer from smoking. Those images do not produce the same horror or sense of guilt, and so are not used-but they have the same level of accuracy as saying that there is a "holocaust for animals".

If everyone became vegetarian, as animal rights activists wish, and there were no need for food animals, there would be no place for them in the world. Domesticated animals are not suited for survival in the wild. They could not be kept in zoos or on farms, since those are 'prisons' as well, and not permitted under an animal rights philosophy. Pasture would have to be given over to more massive plant production for people.

There would be no beef cattle grazing on the hills, no dairy cows or goats, no chickens and turkeys scratching in the front yard, no pigs, or domesticated ducks, geese, or rabbits. It might be hard to believe that a fanatical movement that is ostensibly for the rights of animals could lead to their demise. However, consider the problems that those animals cause their would be rescuers now, and the hypocritical and shortsighted solutions that they've come up with. It's easier to deal with animal's rights in theory than in practice.

Animals have been released inappropriately into the wild by animal liberationists, resulting in their violent deaths and the deaths of other animals.

"Mink release"

"Rescued" animals are euthanized by would be rescuers who have no plan or desire to care for them. From Debra J. Saunders at SFGate:

"This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room."

SFgate article

Perfectly adoptable animals are picked up and euthanized under false pretenses:

Peta Kills Animals

There is no animal holocaust. But the inevitable result of the animal rights mission is that there will be. The removal of animals from human society will result in a final solution of extinction for many species.

HSUS Terrorism Connection

In my opinion this information is enough to justify legally dissolving the Humane Society of the United States, under terrorist and RICO acts. John P. Goodwin is a former member of the terrorist group called the Animal Liberation Front, and that is his only qualification for his job as a vice president at the HSUS. This is blatant support of terrorism and blatant support after the fact of organized crime.

At best the HSUS should never be permitted to be a complaining witness for a puppy mill raid or anything else. Their integrity is not in doubt, it simply does not exist.

Excerpt:

HSUS and Animal Liberation Front Connection (link)

One of HSUS’s supposed ‘subject experts’ on animal cruelty is John Paul “JP” Goodwin, better known for his ties to the Animal Liberation Front, ALF, which FBI considers to be a terrorist group.

In his February 12, 2002 Congressional Testimony James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, said: “During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat.”

What are we supposed to think?

When the HSUS hired John P. Goodwin that proved to the world that animal rights terrorism gets you a cushy job and even an artificial reputation backed by the wealthiest animal rights organization in the world. This is in direct contradiction to the HSUS's declarations that violence is not a means to an end. Even if the pretense of renunciation of violence were real, which Goodwin's posting disproves quite thoroughly, the violence that goes on creates a chilling effect on freedom of speech and participation in the democratic process.

Animal Culture, First Thoughts

Animal culture is better than animal rights or animal liberation. It is little more than what humans have already been doing for thousands of years as animal agriculture and pet ownership. Calling it “animal culture” puts a short name to it that says that we culture animals. In doing so we also culture ourselves, so here we are, a total philosophy of animal culture that includes human and non-human animals. The philosophy is all but invisible because it grew naturally. We are already used to it. We never thought that it had to be codified and given a name. “Agriculture” would be another good word for it, but we’re used to thinking of agriculture as a business that charges too much money for food.

“Animal culture” is simply breeding and caring for animals for use by humans. We have the more traditional uses as pets, service animals, and for food, fiber, and other materials including pharmaceutical use. Don’t kid yourself about captive breeding for the preservation of a species; this is still a human use. It’s just one that shows how much humans care about responsible care of the Earth. Don’t try to get away from it or deny it. Be proud of it. One human purpose is to preserve human and non-human life. Instead of bringing together angry people, I want to bring kind and caring people to love the Earth into life.

Unfortunately, as anyone who reads the first few pages of “Animal Liberation” finds out immediately, what Peter Singer connected with, and I am sure that this was deliberate, was human rage. His book was published in 1975 and that was when issues of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, reproductive rights, and gay rights were very hot topics at the same time, and oppressed groups were really angry. He equated the use of animals with the oppression of humans and today angry feminists and gays and lesbians appear to be overrepresented among animal rights activists, their anger driving the general anger against humanity itself. I guess that blacks generally had more sense (I am white, BTW), but animal rights activists equate slavery in the 19th century with the use of animals. They are also not above equating the use of animals, as in the humane use of animals in agriculture and even as pets, with wife-beating and child abuse. You also might notice that there isn’t much Jewish participation in animal rights activism, not as such, and that might be because they know the difference between broiler chickens and themselves, to reference a favorite Ingrid Newkirk statement. Six billion broiler chickens are not six million humans. Also, Jewish people already have a good system for humane treatment of animals.

Peter Singer and other activists claim that it is wasteful to use animals for food, that without animals eating our food agriculture could produce a bountiful harvest of good vegan products for us to eat. Is he kidding us? If Africans could feed themselves by planting seeds they would plant seeds. It takes modern agricultural methods, modern equipment, and a lot of fuel and irrigation to produce plant-based foods, and at that, we need uses for agricultural waste products that are currently fed to animals, essentially free biomass to convert to meat. In many climates it is impossible to do much if any cultivation of grain or vegetables outside of greenhouses, but the sparse grass, lichens, and other plants that grow there provide an adequate diet for animals like reindeer and caribou, which humans can eat. It’s not a situation in which the bulk of the meat is produced from food that people would or could eat. Even where grain is given to fatten cattle up the animal is fed first, thus the food first supports the food animal species, then it supports humans. That’s extra economy. Food is used well when it is used to support the prosperity of an animal species other than human.

The use of a species for agriculture makes it necessary for humans to assist in the propagation of that species. Those animals can also be made into pets. Agriculture is a fair exchange. Humans get the meat that would go to predators and control predation so that large families of the prey animals can grow, relatively undisturbed. We can even control the predators to the extent that we can feed them from other populations and species of prey animals to keep them going while a given species is allowed to restore its population.

There may be problems with a meat-based diet but there are also problems with vegetarian diets, including the greater chance of allergies like allergies to peanuts, soy, and potatoes that occur because those plants have small amounts of toxins in their seeds and fruit. Human babies need cholesterol to form good brains, and cholesterol comes from meat. There is no open-and-shut case that meat-based diets cause cancer, diabetes, or increases in the rate of heart attacks. [In fact sugar, a food that is made from plants, is implicated in these things.]

Pet ownership is almost nothing but service to the animals. We pamper them, attend to their medical and emotional needs, give them a place to live and the best food that we can afford, and even then we wonder if we’re doing enough. Most pets that I have met have been mightily pleased with our efforts and our company, including tigers and lions. Pet ownership makes humans emotionally dependent on the continued propagation of other animal species, for all practical purposes their willing servants.

I unabashedly support the use of animals to support the human race. Predation is a necessary part of the cycle of life. Even plant life has to be consumed so that new plants will grow in their place, thus herbivores are necessary. Humans or at least fire are needed to manage deciduous forests so that there will be clear grassy areas for herbivores to graze and live, and we can control other natural predators so that the dynamic balance of life can stay at more optimum levels without population crashes. Some of the means that we use are really sophisticated, making our brains huge assets in the fight to maintain animal life of all kinds. Humans can even potentially deflect asteroids from impacting the Earth, thus preventing extinction events. This is a real potential considering the fact that we have several kinds of working rockets and nuclear weapons that can be used for this purpose.

What other animal can take nuisance animals and turn them into friends and companions? Lions and tigers are somewhat dangerous to humans in the wild, and when their food supplies run short some of them turn to humans for food. By that I don’t mean scratching at the back door and begging for scraps, not usually. When they are kept as pets they may be a little bit dangerous, but the human death rate is minuscule and they provide much joy for their humans, whom they dote on. As long as there are a few thousand or a few tens of thousand big cats kept as pets around the world, those species are fairly secure, and the more in captivity the better, as we have the means to keep them going. Wolves are the large carnivore species that has succeeded the best in human hands. That species is very alive and healthy, has wide genetic variety, and it numbers over a hundred million. Yes, they’ve “changed” but feral dog packs are always very successful survivors. Maybe they’ve learned a trick or two from humans.

If we are worried about diseases, there is a lot of reason to believe that being exposed to animals reduces the incidence of allergies and diseases. It’s possible to be allergic to cats and horses and get used to it, I’ve done it myself. The root word for vaccination is “vacca”, the Latin word for cow, and that comes from the well-known historical use of cowpox virus to immunize people against the much more virulent smallpox. Exposure to microbes carried by animals helps train the immune system to fight a wide variety of disease-carrying microbes.

Everything about the human-animal bond is in favor of animal culture. The more humans expand our domain, the more the other animals come with us. We need them as resources and we need their company, which is a lot like the nature that we came from, give or take some technicalities. When we modernize and human birthrate drops, then there is a little more room for other animals. It is healthy to use animals as substitute children and as friends for people of all ages. Kindness and compassion are best practiced with creatures that you can actually touch and hold. This is where it gets real. Others only know the creatures in the abstract, which literally means not real. Humans need this kind of reality.