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.
