REBUTTAL TO AN ANIMAL TERRORIST

[Guest guest]

REBUTTAL TO AN ANIMAL TERRORIST

 

Deconstructing: FrontPage Magazine Interview

 

 

Wesley J Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. The Discovery

Institute is an extremist, right wing group promoting political/theological

domination/suppression of their opposition [progressives, social justice

activists and religious/ethnic minorities] through intimidation and censorship,

and a policy of belligerent nationalism.

 

=========================================================================

 

Comment by Dean Koontz on Wesley J Smith's Book " A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a

Boy "

 

http://www.amazon.com/Rat-Pig-Dog-Boy-Movement/dp/1594033463

 

Dean Koontz writes:

 

“Like every antidemocratic ideology, this one [animal rights] is by definition

antihuman, and like any antihuman ideology, it ultimately deteriorates into a

nihilistic bitterness that is anti-life. . .Wesley J. Smith knows too well that

if the activists ever succeeded in their goals, if they established through

culture or law that human beings have no intrinsic dignity greater than that of

any animal, the world would not be a better place for either humankind or

animals.â€

 

BB's Rebuttal to Mr. Koontz:

 

Apparently this deluded sense of reality encompasses every other area of your

belief system as well, Mr. Koontz. [Perhaps a side effect from years of writing

fiction--or more likely, of your radical right political views.] ARA's

promotion of non-violence toward all life forms [including humans] is the

antithesis of your accusation of nihilism--it is genuinely Pro-Life--ALL LIFE.

Not the insanely schizophrenic doctrine of those which espouse life for some

while denying it to the majority. [The typical " Pro-life " war hawks promoting

the mass murders of innocent babies, worldwide, while adamantly defending saving

stem cells--for which there are several NON-EMBRYONIC sources [the mind boggling

hypocrisy of the right never fails to be thoroughly repulsive in its intensity

and scope]. However, your bitter rambling on the subject of animal rights is not

surprising. You and others of your ilk have consistently failed to legitimately

justify your defense of

gratuitous bloodletting, while condemning a movement for which you have no

knowledge, whatsoever. You join the ubiquitous ranks of those--including Wesley

Smith--which continue to perpetuate a ridiculously, irrational paranoia which

excludes treating the powerless in our world with the respect that ALL sentient

beings deserve. Foisting confinement, torture and murder upon those without a

voice, solely because they are not of your species, is the epitome of primal,

rabid prejudice, and robustly " anti " democratic---and anti-life. EVERY being,

especially those who are unable to protect themselves from the predation of man,

deserves to live their life without fear of exploitation, imprisonment and

death--it is a right you believe you are entitled to, and if indeed you are the

democratically-minded individual you allude to, it is a right you are morally

obligated to defend for ALL; not just for those you deem worthy or when you find

it personally convenient

to do so. " Fair weather " friends of democracy, who would selectively choose

whom they consider worth defending, and whom they would not, are fascism's

greatest allies. Conversely, the animal rights movement embraces the ENTIRE

spectrum of life. I suggest before commenting on the AR Movement any further,

you EDUCATE yourself. Few things are more humiliating than appearing as a

ragingly clueless, uninformed ass, even though legions of animal terrorists and

the GOP continue to elevate this behavior to an art form.

 

=========================================================================

 

Synopsis of Smith's Book: " A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy "

 

Over the past thirty years, as Wesley J. Smith details in his latest book [ " A

Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy " ], the concept of animal rights has been seeping

into the very bone marrow of Western culture. One reason for this development is

that the term “animal rights†is so often used very loosely, to mean simply

being nicer to animals. But although animal rights groups do sometimes focus

their activism on promoting animal welfare, the larger movement they represent

is actually advancing a radical belief system.

 

BB:

The concept of 'animal rights' values the simple premise that ALL living

creatures have a " right " to be allowed to live their lives without

victimization--free from brutality. It is a right that EVERY being strives for.

Those clinging to a barbaric, antiquated paradigm of non-humans as property, and

which militantly defend the grotesque--abuse, confinement, torture and murder of

the powerless--are the real purveyors of a " radical " system--one that is sick.

" Rational " mentally balanced individuals are those which base their personal,

political, moral and ethical decisions upon gaining equal respect and basic

legal protections for ALL beings. Labeling animal rights and other non-violent

social justice movements as " radical " is blatant evidence of the prevalence of

psychopathic fervor dominating the status quo within our society. There is

something obscenely mind-bending about having to defend non-violence as

" radical, " while those driving the planet to

perdition through mass speciescide continue to lay claim to all that is

" rational. " Psychiatric experts acknowledge that those suffering from the worst

forms of mental illness are completely unable to recognize it in themselves; and

we are witnessing an exploding manifestation of this behavior in extremist,

right wing ideology today.

 

~ Animal Rights--Rational Not Radical ~

 

 

***********

 

For some activists, the animal rights ideology amounts to a quasi religion, one

whose central doctrine declares a moral equivalency between the value of animal

lives and the value of human lives. Animal rights ideologues embrace their

beliefs with a fervor that is remarkably intense and sustained, to the point

that many dedicate their entire lives to “speaking for those who cannot speak

for themselves.†Some believe their cause to be so righteous that it entitles

them to cross the line from legitimate advocacy to vandalism and harassment, or

even terrorism against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and

others they accuse of abusing animals.

 

 

BB:

In the most pure and admirable sense possible, the AR Movement IS a religion. It

embraces the true teachings of Jesus Christ in His call for mercy toward ALL;

especially those which are powerless, abused and who, undeservedly, are

considered " least " by society. [Typical of man's hubris, he took it upon himself

to twist and corrupt the meaning of ONE passage, Genesis 1:26 (dominion),

transforming himself into a self-anointed tyrant...destroyer of every life form;

raping and dishonoring one of the most precious gifts God entrusted to

man--Earth; while completely IGNORING Genesis 1:29 (God's edict that man be

vegetarian).] Christ made it abundantly clear that for those defending the

defenseless there would be special blessings. Ironically, while following the

non-violent principles of Christ considerably more strictly than the majority of

those labeling themselves " Christians, " many individuals within the AR movement

are not doing what they do for

spiritual reward--they may have no particular knowledge of or interest in

Biblical Scriptures or theological history. This 'religious' disconnect is no

surprise in view of the way man has bastardized organized religion into a " for

profit " enterprise, denounced and ignored God's basic laws--The 10

Commandments--and converted its church members into behaving more like followers

of Lucifer than of Christ. [ " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither

can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit " (Matt. 7:18).]

 

As for the " distinction " between the value of a man's life vs a non-human's, as

it appears Biblically, there is NONE. In fact, the various transliterations of

Biblical text from Hebrew to Greek to Latin confirm that the soul [life] of a

man is virtually NO DIFFERENT than that of non-human animals. The Hebrew word

" Nephesh " [soul / life] is used interchangeably to define BOTH man and animals'

souls or lives. Non-human animals have LIVES, therefore they have SOULS--EQUAL

TO MAN'S. Here are a few Biblical references to God's equal consideration of

non-humans:

 

~Luke 3:6 -- " all flesh shall see the salvation of God. "

~Psalm 36:6 -- Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your judgments

are like the great deep; you save humans and animals alike, O LORD.

~Ecclesiastes 3:18 -- " Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests

them, that they may see that they themselves are like animalsâ€.

~Romans 8:19-21 -- " the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the

manifestation of the sons of God, because the creature itself also shall be

delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the

children of God. "

 

The Bible also refers to non-humans maintaining court within God's inner

sanctum; and playing a predominant role in end time prophecy and justice.

 

***When man chooses to denigrate God's non-human creations, he [dangerously]

denigrates God Himself.***

 

 

>>Some believe their cause to be so righteous that it entitles them to cross the

line from legitimate advocacy to vandalism and harassment, or even terrorism

against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and others they accuse

of abusing animals.<<

 

It is not " righteousness " which propels some individuals to cross the line into

taking covert, direct action on behalf of animals. It's sheer frustration. The

predominance of animal terrorism within the fur, food and medical research

industries is irrefutable. And since corporations exploiting non-humans

continue to collude with and manipulate our lawmakers, courts, law enforcement

and the public, regarding their sadistic agendas, we have reached a

point---after many decades---where being ignored, abused, jailed and laughed at

deserves a higher level of response. While the overwhelming majority within the

AR Movement continue to advocate for peaceful change, many also realize that

politely petitioning those terrorizing animals is largely an exercise in

futility because of their complete control of the political power structure.

Several are beginning to acknowledge that law enforcement is not out to target

" extremists " but has made it a top priority to

COMPLETELY CRUSH THE ENTIRE LAW-ABIDING AR MOVEMENT. This, in a nation which

continues to hypocritically extol its now defunct democratic virtues. Law

enforcement continues to escalate an artificial atmosphere of hyper-paranoia by

labeling petty acts of vandalism as " terrorism. " Follow the source of this

organized smear campaign of super-demonization, and it will lead to the upper

corporate/political echelons of the GOP's now mainstream lunatic fringe. Which,

in turn, takes us to the heart of who controls, and is controlled by, the animal

exploiting industries.

 

***********

 

All people who love animals and recognize their intrinsic worth can agree with

Wesley J. Smith that human beings owe animals respect, kindness, and humane

care. But Smith argues eloquently that our obligation to humanity matters more,

and that granting “rights†to animals would inevitably diminish human

dignity. In making this case with reason and passion, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog

Is a Boy strikes a major blow against a radically antihuman dogma.

 

BB:

While human beings OWE respect, kindness and humane care to non-humans, it is

both deeply delusional and disingenuous to expect that the human race has any

intention of treating animals with anything other than the absolute vile,

murderous contempt which they have historically shown. As long as non-humans

continue to have all of the legal rights afforded a stick of furniture, they

will continue to be victimized. If one's " obligation " to humanity were anything

more than baseless, hypocritical rhetoric [humanocentrists have no moral or

ethical aversion to killing their own--most are pro-war and capital punishment],

then that obligation must extent to ALL beings or such phony " humanity " is of

little or no practical value or meaning.

 

Speciesism is radically ANTI-LIFE and self-servingly destructive in its

philosophy. It promotes terrorism toward ALL life forms and in the process is

THE most anti-human, anti-God of dogmas. Who set the rule of law which states

one's obligation to human beings supercedes all else?--certainly not God! There

is no Biblical, moral or ethical basis for such a belief. In recognizing the

rights of others we elevate ourselves. Only those ensconced in their own

extremely warped moral depravity, and suffering from complete spiritual

desolation, would equate giving rights to others as diminishing their own. Human

dignity is based on one's character. If one is unwilling to extend fairness,

compassion and equality to all, they possess no dignity to diminish.

 

One cannot " love " animals and " recognize " their intrinsic worth, while

continuing to deny their most basic physical, emotional and psychological

needs/rights. Just as one cannot advocate for slavery and declare themselves an

abolitionist.

 

 

================================================================================\

=================

 

Animal Wrongs

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/11/animal-wrongs-2/

 

By Jacob Laksin

 

 

NOTE:

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of FrontPage Magazine; a who's who of the

fascist radical right ala Ann Coulter

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DLD2yyR_w8AJ:en.wikipedia.o\

rg/wiki/

FrontPage_Magazine+Frontpage+Magazine & cd=3 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=ca & client=firefox-a

 

 

A note from Jacob Laksin:

[Obama administration “regulatory czar†Cass Sunstein hit turbulence during

his 2009 confirmation hearings when critics charged that he was a “radical

animal rights activist.†It emerged that Sunstein had supported banning

hunting; that he had urged eliminating meat eating; and that he had even

championed giving animals the right to sue. Sunstein’s views were decidedly

out of the political mainstream, but they were typical of a movement that author

Wesley Smith, a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery

Institute, analyzes in his new book, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human

Cost of the Animal Rights Movement. Smith joined Front Page to discuss what

animal right activists believe, why their agenda is anti-human, and why

vegetarians are no more moral than meat eaters.]

 

BB:

Sunstein appears to have chosen the rational, non-violent path vs the phobic,

destructive, death-driven agenda of the corrupted " political mainstream. "

Vilifying the peacemaking and merciful of this world is something conservative

fascists do best.

 

***Vegetarians are no more moral than meat eaters, Mr. Smith? Really? As one who

aligns himself with " Christians " of the far-right persuasion perhaps you and

your friends should actually commit to studying the non-violent teachings of

Christ.

 

Please refer to Genesis 1:29 -- God's moral and ethical edict for man's strict

vegetarianism. And to the following words of Jesus Himself:

 

" Verily I say unto you, for this end have

I come into the world: that I may put

Away all blood offerings and the eating

Of the flesh of the beasts and the birds

That are slain by men.

 

In the beginning the Creator gave to all

The fruits of the trees, and the seeds

And the herbs for food; but those who

Loved themselves more than the Lord

Or their fellows, corrupted their ways

And brought diseases into their bodies,

And filled the earth with lust and

Violence. Not by the shedding of

Innocent blood, therefore, but by living

A righteous life shall you find peace.

 

Blessed are they who keep this Law, for

The Creator is manifest in all creatures

And all creatures live in the Creator. "

 

The Gospel of the Nazarenes.

75:9-14; the words of Jesus

 

This verbatim scroll preserved by the Mt. Carmel

Branch of the Essenes (Carmelites) was found in

Tibet in the latter part of the first century.

This text pre-dates the writings of the New

Testament.

 

Confirming texts appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Which were discovered in 1947.

 

- Courtesy of Philosopher, Lecturer - Gary Yourofsky

 

 

 

FPM:

Most people would say they support animal welfare and that they are in favor of

the ethical treatment of animals. But you argue in your book that the animal

rights movement has a broader – and more insidious – agenda. What do animal

rights activists believe?

 

Smith:

The problem is that the media uses the terms animal welfare and animal rights as

if they were interchangeable. They are not. Animal rightists believe that humans

have no more value than animals – they consider that “speciest†– and

that humans do not have the right to profit even from the proper and humane use

of animals. Animal rightists draw a moral equivalency between humans and

animals. There is quote from PETA’s president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk,

that captures it well. She said: “Animal liberationists do not separate out

the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being

has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.â€

 

" Animal rightists believe that humans have no more value than animals "

 

BB:

Mr. Smith, if you can separate yourself from your overwhelmingly flawed belief

in man's superiority long enough to examine it objectively, nature itself--a

totally neutral source--holds the correct answer as to which has more value.

Man is completely dependent on nearly every life-giving process under the sun

[far too many to mention here], either directly or indirectly due to non-humans.

Everything from establishing and replanting forests with their seed-laden dung;

which in turn provides man with trees to exploit for shelter, and various plants

for clothing, food and medicines; to pollinating crops [man has yet to find a

viable substitute for bees]. Animal pollinators are required for over 70% of

crops worldwide. It then becomes clear that man cannot exist without

animals--period. He would be dead in short order. However, if man were

completely annihilated tomorrow, every non-human life form would recover from

his rapacious destruction and THRIVE.

This is an irrefutable FACT: We are 100% dependent on the existence of animals

for their enumerable contributions in replenishing our eco-systems to survive;

they, on the other hand, would only benefit from our demise. Who then is more

valuable?

 

Smith:

That is why some animal rightists are opposed to the domestication of any

animals at all. They believe with a furor – many of their beliefs are entirely

emotional – that what gives something value is the ability to feel to pain and

to suffer, and so they believe, for instance, that cattle ranching is as odious

as slavery and that research on lab rats is an equivalent evil to Joseph

Mengele’s experiments during the Holocaust.

 

BB:

Since several species of animals have already undergone " domestication " it is

unrealistic to think that a mainstream goal of the AR Movement is to completely

reverse this. In particular, where our companion animals are concerned, few

would ever consider living life without their non-human companions as these

relationships often bring deeper satisfaction in ways far superior to that of

human interactions. It is the gratuitous, neverending cycle of torturous life

and death, forcefully imposed upon non-humans, which must be eradicated as much

as possible; cattle ranching and animal experimentation, are heinous offenders.

The ONLY thing setting these atrocities apart from slavery or the Holocaust is

in the MINDS of those people so disconnected from their ethics and morals, that

they refuse to not only see the evil they perpetuate, but defend it as good.

When the ability to empathize with the pain and suffering of ANY species is

removed from the equation, man

has degraded lower than all other life forms. The true evil is in

compartmentalizing who is deserving of man's mercy vs who is not. You further

imply that there should be no " emotions " attached when making decisions to

torture and kill non-human, sentient beings. These are the exact same standards

by which Joseph Mengele lived.

 

Unless one is a psychopath, emotions--particularly empathy and compassion--serve

a vital function which defines the very core of one's humanity. They are crucial

when deciding issues of right and wrong. Those most successful at rationalizing

the use, abuse and murder of sentient beings often operate on a level which

extracts the emotional part of themselves. This is another example of man's

twisted hubris. Emotions anchor our individual ethical and moral standards. They

provide the compass, which when synchronized with critical thinking, indicates

to a mentally healthy person that which is good, acceptable behavior vs that

which is not [in spiritual terms this emotional, conscience-guiding " voice " is

referred to as the Holy Spirit]. Our emotional reactions to events and to one

another are necessary on the most basic level for our very survival. [Ever hear

of fight or flight?] Take emotion out of an individual and you are left with a

dysfunctional shell.

Whipping in the winds of uncertainty; easily led astray and making ethically

and morally repugnant, disastrous choices. This march toward empty, automated

responses to overwhelmingly vile behavior, is symptomatic of a society which is

so entrenched in its own evil, that it not only fails to recognize it, it

embraces it. [ " For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light " (2

Cor. 11:14)] Unfortunately, society has been brainwashed to believe,

particularly by the scientific community, that individuals devoid of functioning

on an emotional level, somehow equates to a higher standard of rationalization.

The very opposite is true. Particularly when an individual's pain and suffering

are involved, their feelings/rights must be given first priority. Human beings

refusing to do this are no more valuable as a species than androids. Remove

empathy, compassion, fairness and a strong sense of right and wrong, and you are

left with nothing more than an

empty, malevolent vessel of flesh.

 

 

FPM: You argue that animal rightists are essentially against Western

civilization. Can you explain your reasoning?

 

 

Smith:

The West is founded on a Judeo-Christian moral ethic, which holds that human

welfare is central and that humans and animals are not of equal worth. The

animal rights movement tears at the heart of that. It’s a movement that is not

based on rationality; there is a very strong anti-human element. For animal

rightists, being human is not special. They don’t believe in human

exceptionalism. They see us as an evil species, as killers and the causers of

suffering.The misanthrope is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

 

BB:

As someone who purports to know about Judeo-Christian theology, I challenge you

to present the particular Biblical verse(s) which to the belief that

GOD--not man--GOD has decreed humans and animals are NOT of equal worth. The

theory of human supremacy is a completely blasphemous--manmade--bastardization

of God's laws. And referring to Genesis 1:26 (dominion) in no way makes an

adequate argument for man's belief that he is superior. At best, the passage

makes the case that man is DIFFERENT [from other animals] in that he was made in

the likeness of God. Man and animal are different from one another, yet EQUAL in

importance. [Refer back to the ecological realities of who can survive without

whom, which actually puts man's worth at a disadvantage.] As for being an evil

species [ " They see us as an evil species, as killers and the causers of

suffering " ] WE ABSOLUTELY ARE. THIS STATEMENT IS PRO-TRUTH MORE THAN ANTI-HUMAN.

I think all but the

hopelessly delusional, would agree that man has become comparable to a Biblical

plague--a monstrous force whose carnage knows no bounds. Man's fate

[unfortunately for animals] is inextricably linked to that of non-humans.

 

ECCLESIASTES 3:19-20

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one

dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath, man has no advantage over the

animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust

and to dust all return.

 

 

Smith:

This is actually quite odd. We are the only species that tries to mitigate the

suffering of other animals. No other animals, not even dogs, have emotional

empathy to the same extent that we do. A hyena in the wild is not going to have

empathy if it encounters an injured animal. It’s going to eat it. Only the

human species is actively trying to mitigate animal suffering.

 

 

BB:

Mr. Smith, your level of ignorance is appalling. We are NOT the only species

which mitigates suffering--we ARE the only species which PROMOTES it. There is

ample proof that many other species have the ability to comfort one another;

they also have the ability to comprehend human suffering and mitigate that as

well. [Have you ever had a dog or cat crawl into your lap and comfort you when

you are emotionally distressed?] It appears you have absolutely NO experience

whatsoever with animals. And as a canine behaviorist who knows more about the

emotional parameters of dogs than most, you happen to be dead wrong about the

extent of a canine's capabilities for empathy. In fact, comparatively speaking,

the average dog's emotional empathy level is far superior to that of his human

supremacist counterpart.

 

 

Smith:

One of the more dismaying things about the animal rights movement is that

Western universities have provided a forum to its more extreme voices. In 2007,

Hampshire College in Massachusetts permitted animal rights terrorists to speak.

Their slogan was “Smash the State, Crush the Cage!†Universities allow these

radicals to appear on campus, and yet they prevent people like David Horowitz

from speaking.

 

 

BB:

Of course, this is what right wing lunatics do best--reverse reality. Elite,

extremist conservatives have been shoveling money into U.S. universities at

unprecedented rates for at least the last 40 years, making sure that their

political ideology [of hate] is the ONLY one taught; using the threat of

withholding funding as their Sword of Damocles, while perpetuating fascist

policies designed to target liberal instructors for annihilation.

 

Mr. Smith, it is extremely revealing whom you choose to defend. David Horowitz

hails from the same hysterical, hate-mongering, fanatical fringe as Beck,

Limbaugh, Coulter and others who will not rest until every progressive is

targeted for extermination, as evidenced by their ongoing, murderously

inflammatory rhetoric. Your credibility quotient now stands at ZERO.

 

 

FPM:

In your book, you defend using animals to promote human welfare, for instance

through animal testing. Can you give us an overview of that argument?

 

Smith:

Human beings derive incredible benefits from proper and humane testing on

animals. One critic of my book, Matthew Scully, has claimed that I support

experiments in which chimpanzees have their arms broken, but that is erroneous:

There is no such case discussed in my book. On the other hand, medical research

would grind to a halt without animal

testing. There would be no way to test new drugs. Ultimately there is no way to

go around animal testing – unless you were willing to use human test subjects.

Animal testing makes life-saving research possible. Let me give you an example.

There is a class of anti-AIDS drugs called protein inhibitors that are used to

stifle infections. In the first iteration of these drugs, the researchers tested

them on animals, and they ended up destroying their livers. So the researchers

went back to the drawing board and came up with a new, safer, and more effective

drug that has yielded great benefit to humans. But imagine if the animal

rightists had their way and the drug could not have been tested on animals.

Let’s say that they had tested it on humans, and found that the drug causes

liver damage. At that point, there would be a huge scandal, lawsuits, and the

research would be suspended. That means that thousands of people would have been

dead because there

would not have been no new and improved drug for them to take.

 

BB:

The LISTS of animal-tested, FDA approved drugs, alone, which have maimed and

killed untold MILLIONS of people over the 200 years of animal testing would be

physically daunting to catalog, if indeed, those " kill/maim totals " were made

available to the public for their review--which THEY ARE NOT. Those in the

fields of biomedical and pharmaceutical testing have used their political

influence to deny public access to any information which would have negative

consequences to the marketability of their " products. " Since human trials are

extremely limited in scope prior to the release of drugs/medical devices, [do

you actually believe these companies are going to test for a few years (much

less for decades) and then upon finding out their products are lethal, return to

square one? Think again!] the real " human trials " begin in earnest when that

particular drug/device is released to the public. No amount of animal tests,

particularly with pharmaceuticals, can

accurately predict their efficacy in humans. Add to this, the fact that these

lethal products are KNOWINGLY released to an unsuspecting public and medical

researchers are given a license to kill twice. First by the obscenely wasteful

sacrifice of non-human lives which have no bearing on human physiology,

whatsoever, and then on unwitting humans which put their faith in such

Neanderthalic shamanism.

 

Here's the reality: The majority of drugs on the market today have lethal human

histories and REMAIN on the market. The FDA's standard response to these

chemical killers continues to be a strong WARNING to the doctors prescribing

them. A plethora of lawsuits are [quietly] ongoing, thanks to the political

power of drug companies; and these drugs are rarely pulled from the

marketplace--quite the opposite.

 

Advair, the GlaxoSmithKline asthma drug, has killed well over 6,000 people to

date [confirmed cases only] -- ironically by exacerbating the very problem it

claims to alleviate -- yet, commercials for this killer still air hundreds of

times per day across the nation. The FDA has known since 2005 that this drug is

a KILLER linked to 1 out of 2 asthma-related deaths.

 

Hundreds of people taking GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia, a controversial diabetes

medicine, needlessly suffer approximately 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of

heart failure EACH MONTH, according to confidential government reports that

recommend the drug be removed from the market. Avandia, intended to treat Type

2 diabetes, is known as rosiglitazone and was linked to 304 deaths during the

third quarter of 2009. The drug REMAINS ON THE MARKET.

 

If GlaxoSmithKline were legally forced to reveal their company's internal memos

regarding Advair, Avandia and a multitude of other lethal drugs foisted on the

public, chances are great that it could be proven they knew these drugs would

kill people WELL BEFORE they were ever placed on the market. One can

confidently make such a claim because there is a long history of this type of

collusion between researchers, the FDA and drug companies. An " axis of evil "

steeped in scientific fraud and outright murder, and one in which an industry is

lawfully allowed to continue hiding its damning research documentation because

the FDA protects it.

 

Advair and Avandia are typical of the thousands of drugs which have been tested

on animals, given an FDA stamp of approval, then released to the public only to

have hundreds of thousands of trusting consumers fall prey to death or

irreparable damage while having insult added to injury by paying exorbitant

amounts of money for prescribed drugs which are killing them.

 

According to John Pippin, MD:

 

" Today, a growing number of physicians,scientists and scientific agencies

believe that moving to non-animal research and testing methods is critical to

advancing human health. Numerous reports confirm very poor correlations between

animal research results and human results, and the research breakthroughs so

optimistically reported in the media almost always fail in humans. Examples

abound.

 

~ Every one of 197 human trials using 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines tested in animals

has failed.

 

~ More than 150 human stroke trials using treatments successful in animals

have failed, as have at least two dozen animal diabetes cures.

 

~ Vioxx was tested successfully in eight studies using six animal species,

yet this anti-inflammatory medication may have caused the deaths of more

Americans than the Vietnam War.

 

~The monoclonal antibody TGN1412 was safe in monkeys at 500 times the dose

tested in humans, yet all six British volunteers who received the drug in 2006

nearly died.

 

Conversely, simple aspirin produces birth defects in at least seven animal

species, yet is safe in human pregnancy. When even identical human twins have

different disease susceptibilities, how can we think answers will be found in

mice or monkeys? The National Cancer Institute now uses panels of human cells

and tissues to test treatments for cancer and HIV/AIDS, and to detect drug

toxicities. And the National Research Council now recommends replacing animal

toxicity testing with in vitro methods.

 

I can attest that animal research is inherently cruel. Animal protection laws do

not mitigate this reality. Whether the debate involves humane issues or human

benefits, the evidence confirms the need to replace animal experiments with more

accurate human-specific methods. That's the best way to make progress and

improve health. " -Dr. John Pippin-

 

The following are just a few examples [among thousands] of the cruel, lunacy

researchers inflict on non-humans in order to keep massive taxpayer funded

grants flowing, when there are already volumes of far more reliable human data

available:

 

- Does ginger reduce stress in animals?

Researchers subjected mice and rats to a series of extremely cruel behavioral

experiments designed to inflict chronic stress. For example, they repeatedly

forced animals to swim until complete exhaustion and near drowning or they shut

the animals in airless containers until they convulsed and had to be

resuscitated.

 

- What effect does “cafeteria†(junk) food have on rats and their young?

Researchers fed junk food such as doughnuts, crisps and Mars Bars to pregnant

rats to see what impact it had on their bodies and the health of their young at

autopsy.

 

- Are “impulsive†cocaine addicted rats more likely to relapse?

Researchers surgically implanted a tube into the rats’ jugular veins to

administer the cocaine. They encouraged rats to become addicted to the cocaine

and then forced them to ‘abstain’ by giving them electric shocks through

their feet when they requested more cocaine.

 

- Does beer prevent Alzheimer’s disease in mice?

In an effort to mimic the disease in humans, mice were given aluminum in their

drinking water. They were also force fed beer and tested to see how many times

they fell off a rotating wheel.

 

- Do blueberries and strawberries protect rats from cosmic rays?

Rats were fed a diet of berries and then restrained inside a tube and

irradiated.

 

- How much pomegranate juice will kill a mouse or rat?

Mice and rats were force fed high doses of pomegranate juice extract (PomellaTM)

through a tube directly into their stomachs. The researchers wanted to see how

much juice would kill 50% of them. Some rats were force fed the equivalent of

800 times what a normal human would drink in a day.

 

 

***Individuals continuing to defend animal " research " as ethical are either

those which are too lazy, stupid or indifferent to investigate its full

ramifications or those living off of its massive, endless flow of money.***

 

 

Smith:

And animal rightists would go further than abolishing animal testing.

Gary Francione of Rutgers University has called for human society to

get rid of all domesticated animals within a single generation.

Francione has said that dogs are “refugees in a world in which they

don’t belong.â€

 

BB:

A single individual's opinion does not a movement make. I refer back to my prior

statement: " Few would ever consider living life without their non-human

companions as these relationships often bring deeper satisfaction in ways far

superior to that of human interactions. "

 

Smith:

Think of a society that has no meat, no seeing-eye dogs, no pets of any kind.

It’s impossible to quantify the consequences to our society if all animals

were suddenly off limits. But that’s the goal of the animal rights movement.

 

BB:

Mr. Smith, your conclusions regarding the ultimate " goal " of the AR movement are

uneducated, hysterical, full of ridiculous exaggeration and JUST PLAIN WRONG.

They appear to be drawn from sheer fantasy and/or delusion. While totally

predictable, it is extremely insulting to those of us within the AR Movement to

continually be bombarded by those on the far right, too lazy or intellectually

challenged, to, at the very least, do some basic homework before calling

themselves " experts " on the subject of animal rights. [That would entail

actually talking in depth to those within the movement, which includes the

entire spectrum of goals and opinions e.g. animal welfarists, incrementalists,

abolitionists, etc.] You would then know that PETA is 'welfarist'--they work

WITH animal exploiters and are far from " extremists, " as they believe it is

acceptable to kill non-humans for the most speciesist of reasons--convenience.

 

Gary Francione, in my opinion, does not represent the majority in the AR

Movement, either. His views are far too passive [he believes vegan education is

the dominant key in reversing animal exploitation] and unrealistic to actually

achieve any immediate change for non-humans. This belief also falsely assumes

that once people know " better " they will " do " better; it denies the reality we

see all around us--the innate nature of the majority toward violence,

selfishness and corruption.

 

 

 

FPM:

I was intrigued by your observation that the recent tragedy in

Orlando, Fla., where a killer whale drowned his female trainer, serves

as a refutation of the animal rights movement, at least in so far as

it illustrates the moral distinctions between humans and animals that

they deny. How exactly did that illustrate the point?

 

 

Smith:

This was a terrible tragedy, but what the whale did was not

wrong in the moral sense: no one called for the whale to be arrested,

tried, or punished. It was accepted that a killer whale was just being a

killer whale. If I had done that to a woman, that would be murder. But

animals don’t have moral agency and so we don’t call for them to be held

to account in a way that humans can – and should – be held to account.

This is a crucial distinction between humans and animals. We have moral

capacities, the ability to reason, etc., that make us unique. That is

part of human exceptionalism.

 

 

BB:

Perhaps you should explain your theory to those in human society which continue

to demonize and wipe out hundreds of non-human species [wolves, cougars, bears,

sharks, snakes, reptiles--alligators and crocodiles--come immediately to mind],

for no other reason than they are thought of as " killers. " They are indeed

" punished, " murdered by man for simply being who they are.

 

Human " exceptionalism " as you have coined it, does NOT apply to the ability to

reason, since this is a trait which is applicable to most, if not ALL non-human

species. The ability to reason [make judgments] is a cornerstone of basic

survival and no creature can successfully live for very long without it--even if

it is considered more intuitive than deliberate--which there is a growing volume

of evidence that reinforces the fact that reasoning [critical

thinking/problem-solving] IS DELIBERATE in many non-human species...something

you would know if you bothered to research it. There is one area in which " human

exceptionalism " applies: Only MAN is bloated with his own self-importance,

cannot recognize his mass destruction to the planet, and continues to

delusionally laud himself as the most worthy of beings. One who can do this, is

" exceptionally " moronic.

 

 

FPM:

Although your book is primarily critical of the animal rights

movement for it’s too-extreme definition of animal welfare, you’ve also

been critical of those on the other extreme who suggest too narrow a

view of animal rights. As you’ve noted, some have defended using animals

as property; one writer, though not approving of his treatment of dogs,

nonetheless defended Michael Vick’s right to treat them as his property.

The majority of us would instinctively recoil at that argument, but can

you explain why it is wrong?

 

 

Smith:

The philosopher Descartes said that animals were automatons,

and so it didn’t matter what we did to them. But today we understand

that animals have feelings: they feel pain and they can experience fear.

They are not inanimate objects, like a book that you can tear, trample

on and burn. And they are not plants, which don’t experience emotional

pain. Because we understand that animals feel pain, we are morally bound

by a duty to animals to treat them properly, and not to cause them

gratuitous suffering. This is our moral duty as humans. When Vick

abused and tortured his dogs, he denigrated his own humanity.

 

It is because we have moral agency that we should seek ways to reduce

the suffering of animals, whether it is cattle or pigs raised on factory

farms. In my book, I have a chapter on Dr. Temple Grandin. Grandin is a

autistic, so she sees the world visually, like an animal would, as

opposed to intellectually. And because she understood how animals see

the world, she was able to design improved methods for slaughter that

reduce animal suffering. The greater our ability to reduce animal

suffering the more we should pursue it.

 

 

>>The greater our ability to reduce animal suffering the more we should pursue

it.<<

 

 

BB:

Unfortunately, Mr. Smith, what you espouse is in direct OPPOSITION to this

statement. One is judged based on ACTIONS not empty words. What have you done to

personally reduce the suffering of non-humans in your life? You continue to be

their foe by raging against a movement which is attempting to ensure they have a

legal right not to be tortured and murdered.

 

Your assertion of Temple Grandin's understanding of how animals see the world, "

she was able to design improved methods for slaughter that reduce animal

suffering, " proves you are incapable of recognizing the obscene and blasphemous

irony in what Grandin does for a living--you appear as mentally confused and

deceived as she is.

 

 

FPM:

Are there any particular practices or treatments of animals in use

today that you find especially objectionable?

 

 

Smith:

Bull fights. They are remnants of a Roman, coliseum-like culture.

It’s deeply distressing for the animal. You have a bull being baited,

tortured, taunted and stabbed, until it tires long enough for the

matador to run a sword through its heart. Someone may then eat the meat.

There should always be some consideration of the benefit to humanity

versus the suffering caused to the animal. I think bull fights would

fail that test.

 

I would also oppose things like internet hunting, where you have people

killing animals with remote controlled guns using webcams. This is

killing for the sake of killing. But I am not opposed to hunting for

food, and not even necessarily to hunting for sport. In Africa , sport

hunting supports their ability to cull animal herds and maintain

wildlife parks.

 

BB:

It is man's ability to successfully compartmentalize the most evil aspects of

himself, which fosters the belief that some murders are warranted while others

are not.

 

FPM:

Finally, I would be curious to get your view on the vegetarian

question. Are vegetarians inherently more moral than meat eaters?

 

 

Smith:

Not at all. Humans are biologically omnivorous, and meat is a

natural, nutritious food source. I respect those who don’t eat meat

for ethical reasons, who refuse to eat anything with a face. But I see

it as akin to monasticism. A monk is not more moral than a married

couple that has normal sexual relations. The fact that some people

choose not to eat meat doesn’t make those who do any less moral.

 

 

>>Humans are biologically omnivorous...The fact that some people

choose not to eat meat doesn’t make those who do any less moral.<<

 

 

BB:

Again, refer to Genesis 1:29 -- God's moral, ethical and " biological " edict for

man's strict vegetarianism [God created plant-eaters, NOT omnivores]. And to the

following words of Jesus Himself:

 

" Verily I say unto you, for this end have

I come into the world: that I may put

Away all blood offerings and the eating

Of the flesh of the beasts and the birds

That are slain by men.

 

In the beginning the Creator gave to all

The fruits of the trees, and the seeds

And the herbs for food; but those who

Loved themselves more than the Lord

Or their fellows, corrupted their ways

And brought diseases into their bodies,

And filled the earth with lust and

Violence. Not by the shedding of

Innocent blood, therefore, but by living

A righteous life shall you find peace.

 

Blessed are they who keep this Law, for

The Creator is manifest in all creatures

And all creatures live in the Creator. "

 

 

 

FPM:

Wesley Smith, thanks very much for your time.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

I would like to comment on your religious/political affiliations since they are

the foundation for your anti-animals' rights stance, and appear to be the very

essence of who you are.

 

The Discovery Institute is funded by wealthy, socially / politically powerful

conservatives for [among other things] the purpose of foisting their narrow,

repressive religious-political beliefs onto the rest of society, by using the

educational system to indoctrinate school children into creationist views, while

disingenuously claiming they have a " secular " agenda. Their goal is to destroy

the separation of church and state and build a theocracy where only their brand

of " Christianity " will be lawfully recognized.

 

As someone who believes in the creationist concept and in " adaptive " evolution

[where species undergo physical changes to ensure their survival], I am a

staunch defender of church/state separation. Any other system fosters murderous

tyranny. One need only look at history [and present day theocracies] to

understand the dire ramifications of what the Discovery Institute is bent on

achieving. Ironically, the individuals pushing such a " religious " agenda align

themselves with the crème de la crème of hate mongering extremists; the Ann

Coulters, Limbaughs, Becks and a plethora of other insane individuals which have

been loosed on the U.S. public, courtesy of a right wing controlled media. One

could not find a more malevolent, greedy, warped, self-serving bunch of

anti-human destructionists if they tried-- " the misanthrope is so thick you could

cut it with a knife. "

This is why your claim of " human exceptionalism " rings hollow and glaringly

false. You cannot expect anyone with common sense to believe you have a

" pro-people " agenda while you align yourself with those most focused on

annihilating human freedoms and raping the planet for their own personal

enrichment. Mr. Smith, what you are really proselytizing is CONTROLLING OTHERS

and attempting to deny the rights of those whose views are in opposition to your

own.

 

Your position on human euthanasia is a perfect example of this. As with your

misguided theories on animals' rights, you divorce your emotions, dumping

empathy, compassion and logic from the issue and tenaciously shred anyone who

might desire the option to end their life due to unbearable pain and suffering.

In Oregon and Washington where doctor assisted euthanasia is legal, there is

overwhelming evidence that the majority of people who apply for the necessary

drugs to end their lives NEVER USE THEM. It is the OPTION which they desire to

have, should their pain become intolerable. Yet, you are hellbent on denying

this decision to them--imposing your will on others, who will suffer enormously

if you get your way. There is no consideration given for an individual's

circumstances, only a Bush / Cheney-style, bullying approach to the issue.

Black and white -- my way or the highway.

 

This is the epitome of the same mindless, hostile, hypocritical arrogance which

permeates the right. And it is built on extremely dangerous delusion...i.e.,

saving stem cells while blowing hundreds of thousands of real babies to bits in

an endless bid for profit and world domination. Claiming " family values " while

denying a decent living to poor Americans [particularly women and children];

voting against school lunch programs for hungry kids; economically beating down

women by refusing childcare, jobs assistance, a living wage and their

reproductive rights; denying health insurance for children [and universal health

care for the masses]; reversing environmental and wildlife protections in lieu

of corporate profits and personal exploitation; manipulating and obstructing the

democratic process by vote rigging; committing criminal acts and wielding

positions of power to place one's self and cronies above the law; using enormous

wealth and political power to

defeat the checks and balances of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, courts, law

enforcement and educational systems by stacking them with right wing zealots;

enacting draconian legislation meant to further deny rights to the rest of

society [e.g. AETA, PATRIOT ACT]; promoting terror, physical violence and murder

against " progressives " ; fabricating vicious lies regarding your " perceived "

enemies; claiming moral superiority while engaging in massive theft of public

funds, fornication, adultery, child molestation and myriad flagrant acts, then

hypocritically " fingerpointing " to others while refusing to take responsibility

for your own treachery. The right is deeply enmeshed in moral decay and

psychopathy--their goals endanger all who value a free society.

 

Frankly, I could write volumes on the evils of right wing ideology, but that is

not the purpose of this rebuttal. My intent is to " call you out " on the lies,

exaggerations, misrepresentations and your lack of research regarding the AR

Movement; your complete ignorance as it applies to animal experimentation, and

on your groundless theory of human supremacy, one based on flimsy, nebulous

theological concepts.

 

Regardless of what you claim, you are militantly anti-human and anti-freedom.

Your world is one in which only those with your political and religious

ideologies will be allowed to exist -- at least this is the ultimate goal. You

are unable to " live and let live " just as the rest of the rabid right. There is

no truth but the truth of the far right--all else is beaten down, vilified,

muzzled and locked away by means of a right wing infested media, military, law

enforcement, court system, corporations and a bullying, obstructionist

legislative body; and an increasingly total domination of our educational

system. Those which the right cannot control, they will terrorize, lock away and

I believe, based on 10 years of rule by psychopaths like Dick Cheney, torture

and murder. May God help progressives. Conservative terrorists reserve the right

to obliterate the Constitution--particularly the Bill of Rights--call it

patriotism, and then wave the feces-stained

flag high as they proclaim the tenets of democracy. This, Mr. Smith, is what

you stand for.

 

Brennan Browne

 

 

Post Script:

I happened to have skimmed over one of your hate-filled diatribes regarding the

AR movement, where you erroneously call the ELF [Earth Liberation Front] the

" Environmental " liberation front. http://www.discovery.org/a/1273

It is obvious that getting the facts straight is irrelevant and secondary to the

goal of trashing those you oppose.

 

 

=======================================================================