Visitor:
Philosophy of AR > Philosophy - General
Rebuttal to an Animal Terrorist

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.”

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 animals”.
~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

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.”

"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 subscribe 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.”

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.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com