Skip to content

Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

June 24, 2011

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society and their animal rights cohots have publicly shown great compassion for a now famous puppy named Whitey. This animal rights group filed a lawsuit against the owner of the puppy who was identified as Jerzon Senador.

PAWS accused Senador of violating the Animal Welfare Act, a law that seeks “to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operation of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating, or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets.”

For allegedly violating this absurd and non-objective law, Senador may be punished for not less than 6 months or not more than 2 years of imprisonment and may be fined of not less than P1,000.00, but not more than P5,000.00.

The unconditional compassion of these animal rights advocates for animals is very much understandable considering the depravity and the evilness of their ideology or philosphy. Like I said in a previous post, this group and all animal welfare groups are motivated by an anti-Man political ideology. While they publicly flaunt their unconditional concern and compassion for animals, they blatantly ignore the rights and welfare of man, as well as the negative, unintended impacts of their political advocacy on man’s interests.

This reminds me of the animal rights and welfare advocacy of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.

Some of my friends call PETA a neo-Nazi group. Lest I/they be accused of committing a new ridiculous fallacy called “argumentum ad hitlerum”, which is actually a smear term and a fallacy unto itself, let me state here that Adolf Hitler was also an animal lover and an animal rights/welfare advocate. 

This should debunk the so stupid a claim by some people that pet-hanger Jerzon Senador is a wannabe serial killer or whatever.

Section 2 of Nazi Law on Animal Protection states:

It is forbidden:

1. to so neglect an animal in one’s ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one’s domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.

This source narrates the sheer contradiction in the Nazi’s concept of rights and welfare. It states:

Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.

Another point that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the inconsistent actions of the alleged “…friends of animals…” in Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 “liberated” rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal “sanctuary” for reasons of “overcrowding.” One wonders why a portion of their multi-million dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing for those animals.

There is considerable evidence of acceptance of animal “rights” by officials of the Third Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century. They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the “rights” of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish people.

As to Hitler the animal lover, Goebbles wrote in his Diary, May 30 1942;

“He (Hitler) has bought himself a young German Shepard dog called “Blondi” which is the apple of his eye. It was touching listening to him say that he enjoyed walking with this dog so much, because only with it could he be sure that [his companion] would not start talking about the war or politics. One notices time and time again that the Fuhrer is slowly but surely becoming lonely. It is very touching to see him play with this young German Shepard dog. The animal has grown so accustomed to him that it will hardly take a step without him. It is very nice to watch the Fuhrer with his dog. At the moment the dog is the only living thing that is constantly with him. At night it sleeps at the foot of his bed, it is allowed into his sleeping compartment in the special train and enjoys a number of privileges….that no human would ever dare to claim. He bought the dog from a minor official in the post office in Ingolstadt”

Does this sound familiar? The Nazis declared great compassion for animals, yet they sought to eliminate the entire Jewish race. The die-hard members of PETA and animal rights group publicly declare the same degree of compassion for animals and pets, yet they don’t have the same compassion to drop a complaint against a pet-hanger named Jerzon Senador.

48 Comments leave one →
  1. GabbyD permalink
    June 24, 2011 3:38

    what are the unintended effects of this law?

    • June 24, 2011 3:38

      A good example is the jailing and fining of a person for allegedly torturing or maltreating an animal. That’s a very harsh penalty for doing such a thing.

      The consequences of this Act are as follows:

      1. Heavy regulations for the person, association, partnership, corporation, cooperative, or any government agency or instrumentality including slaughterhouses that seeks to establish, maintain and operate any pet shop, kennel, veterinary clinic, veterinary hospital, stockyard, corral, stud farm or stock farm or zoo for the breeding, treatment, sale or trading, or training of animals. See section 2, 3, 4, and 5.

      2. Under the first paragraph of Section 6, it states that “It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, or to neglect to provide adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat any animal or to subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause or produce to be tortured or deprived of adequate care sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal Welfare.” This is a very broad, sweeping, non-objective law/crime. A person may be imprisoned or fined for not merely providing “adequate care, sustenance or shelter” for any animal. What constitutes “adequate care sustenance or shelter”? It means animals have a right to shelter and care too and this is mandatory!

      3. The second paragraph of Section 6 is very ridiculous! What is “humane procedure”? That’s ridiculous! Anybody can be held liable under this bullshit section!

      4. Section 7 is another leftist bullshit! The term ” natural habitat of the wildlife” is not properly defined. What constitute destruction of said habitat? This section can be used against loggers or anyone who wants to transform an alleged habitat into a productive land. This prohibits humans’ economic activities.

      Thus, this law is utterly anti-man and pro-animals.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 25, 2011 3:38

        the IRR explains exactly how these concepts are defined.

        none of this is unclear.

        anyway, i’m not so interested in the clarity. i can accept that, whatever the definition is, you will reject it.

        what i am interested in, are the unintended effects.

        so, what are the unintended effects? i understand you dont agree with it. but what are its unintended

      • June 25, 2011 3:38

        I read the stupid IRR. It doesn’t define those terms. http://www.beyondbordersreporting.net/irr_ra8485.htm

        So based on what you read on the IRR, how does the law define the terms “humane” and “humane procedure” under section 6?

        I’ve already mentioned the unintended consequences. It’s really disturbing that you still don’t get them.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 25, 2011 3:38

        so the unintended consequences are… that people may have different interpretations of humane treatment?

        lets use some real examples. give us one specific example of unintended consequences. something that actually is happening, or almost happened.

        this puppy drying thing. what is the unintended consequence here?

      • June 26, 2011 3:38

        Its unintended consequences on people’s rights, because anybody could be jailed for committing what they call “inhumane” treatment and procedures, business, livelihood and economic activities.

        Now, I’d like you to define “humane” and “humane procedures” since your IRR, which you didn’t actually read, does not provide any definition.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 26, 2011 3:38

        i guess you have a misunderstanding of the phrase “unintended consequences”.

        the burden of that phrase requires the defense of two words. unintended AND consequences.

        now… a law clearly has consequences. infact, ANYTHING has consequences.

        however, whats the unintended part? if someone is accused of being inhumane, then using the courts and the bodies empowered by the IRR to shape the meaning of the phrase humane, then it is completely INTENDED that that someone be prosecuted.

        simply put: a law’s intended use is to be used.

        however, a law may have UN-INTENDED EFFECTS. effects that the authors/policy makers DID NOT INTEND to happen.

        so i ask, ONE MORE TIME: what are the UNINTENDED EFFECTS?

      • June 26, 2011 3:38

        I suggest that you read this.

        Let me give you a theoretical example, comrade.

        Under the Animal Welfare Law, pet or animal owners are mandated, required by law to provide almost everything their pets/animals need like shelter, food and even medication.

        Consider the following case.

        A single mother owns three dogs. She and her three-year-old son love their pets. However one day their pets mysteriously contracted an animal disease. The mother tried her best to medicate her pets. However, her neighbor, a PETA member and an animal rights advocate, called the police and complained that she’s denying her pets’ right to proper medication. The thing is, the single mother could not afford to send her pets to a veterinary clinic. Under the law, she could be held liable.

        But the mother has to choose between sending her pets to a veterinary clinic and providing food to her son.

        This case usually happens in some countries like Great Britain, comrade. This is one example of unintended consequence on man’s right.

        The idea of animal rights is entirely a European idea. It’s good that this law is not that strictly implemented here in the Philippines, which is a poor country. Perhaps because we’re a poor country. Strict implementation of this law would lead to unintended consequences, comrade.

        If this happens to a single mother, it could happen to anyone, particularly those who engage in a business that requires the use of animals for entertainment or livelihood purposes.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 26, 2011 3:38

        thats it? the “poor woman needs to put down a sick pet” scenario?

        thats incorporated into the law. the law is clear. if the dog needs to be put down, for medical reasons, then it will.

        now, a private group has the freedom to challenge that. based on the law, they will lose.

        so thats it? that the great danger?

      • June 26, 2011 3:38

        Also, understand the unintended consequences of the law on businesses.

        Second par. of Section 4: No public utility shall transport any such animal without a written permit from the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry. Cruelty in transporting includes overcrowding, placing of animals in the trunks or under the hood trunks of the vehicles.”

        Understand what the Committee on Animal Welfare can do, comrade.

        SECTION 5: There is hereby created a Committee on Animal Welfare attached to the Department of Agriculture which shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the strict implementation of the provisions of this Act, including the setting of safety and sanitary standards within thirty (30) calendar days following its approval. Such guidelines shall be reviewed by the Committee every three (3) years from its implementation or whenever necessary.

        The Committee shall be composed of the official representatives of the following:

        The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG);
        Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS);
        Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) of the Department of Agriculture (DA);
        Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR);
        National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) of the DA;
        Agriculture Training Institute (ATI) of the DA;
        Philippine Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA);
        Veterinary Practitioners Association of the Philippines (VPAP);
        Philippine Animal Hospital Association (PAHA);
        Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS);
        Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA);
        Philippine Society of Swine Practitioners (PSSP);
        Philippine College of Canine Practitioners (PCCP); and
        Philippine Society of Animal Science (PSAS)
        The Committee shall be chaired by a representative coming from the private sector and shall have two (2) vice-chairpersons composed of the representative of the BAI and another from the private sector.

        The Committee shall meet quarterly or as often as the need arises. The Committee members shall not receive any compensation but may receive reasonable honoria from time to time.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 26, 2011 3:38

        this is even more confusing. are u criticising the existence of a committee? a committee that has a clear objective and has representatives from the right places?

        this is plain vanila regulation. whats the problem?

        btw, pls dont use the word comrade. it makes u sound dumb.

      • June 26, 2011 3:38

        Just read this, comrade. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/animals-dont-have-rights-stupid/

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 25, 2011 3:38

      i can see that you dont like the law, but the reasons why escape me. lets take this a couple at a time…

      1)” jailing and fining of a person for allegedly torturing or maltreating an animal. That’s a very harsh penalty for doing such a thing.” –> why is it harsh? what would an appropriate penalty be?

      2)A person may be imprisoned or fined for not merely providing “adequate care, sustenance or shelter” for any animal. What constitutes “adequate care sustenance or shelter”? — > if u read the IRR, you will see what this means. its defined.

      3) again, “humane” is well defined.

      in short, is your problem that its unclear? if so, then u are wrong. its quite clear.

      • June 25, 2011 3:38

        I said the appropriate move is to repeal the law. Humane is not well-defined. It is very non-objective. Where’s the definition of “humane”?
        As to 2, show it to me. Humans must not be mandated, obliged, required by law to provide “adequate care sustenance or shelter”. Everything should be voluntary on their part. I understand why you don’t understand what this law is all about… or that you don’t understand the objective importance of law to humans and human affairs. Not every law is good to humans.

      • June 25, 2011 3:38

        Kindly explain to me, GabbyD, what constitutes “humane procedure”?

  2. GabbyD permalink
    June 26, 2011 3:38

    would i learn what the unintended consequences are by reading that blog post?

    parenthetically, i also think that post is mistakenly premised. you dont need to have animal rights to find that animals should be treated humanely. also humanely does not mean “treat as if it were a person”.

    so, no. i dont think so.

    so what are the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?

    • June 26, 2011 3:38

      I’m really disturbed that you still don’t get it. It’s either your dumb or just plain ignoramus. Like I said, our country would be a worse place if they strictly implement the non-objective, general provisions of this law. Also, like I said this law has great negative impacts on people’s rights, businesses, livelihood, etc.

      Some of the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of the law if it is strictly, fully enforced are as follows:

      1. Greater unemployment because the government through its agencies can penalize businesses and business owners for allegedly violating its provisions. Like I said, the law is a gigantic regulatory measure. Of course you don’t get this because you’re an ignoramus.

      2. Unnecessary regulations that could affect businesses that involve animals.

      3. Jailing people for allegedly committing “inhumane” treatment of animals, and since most of the provisions of the law are non-objective, vaguely defined, broad, and very general.

      4. Certain establishments, such as pet shop, kennel, veterinary clinic, veterinary hospital, stockyard, corral, stud farm or stock farm or zoo, may not be given “certificates” for failing to comply with the provisions of Section 2 (plus Section 4). The provision of Section 2 (plus Section 4) means business owners need to allocate more capital.

      5. Corruption and/or bribery. Since this involves giving of certificates and supervision, corruption is very much possible.

      Now, give me the objective definition of “humane” treatment of animals and “humane procedures.” Your IRR is bullshit. It shows you know nothing about this law.

      And tell me why should the government jail people for failing to comply with this Act.

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 26, 2011 3:38

      OMG.

      you know what, apparently, you dont know what “unintended” means. its ok.

      i already told you, and we agree, its a regulation.

      it seems that your problem isnt animal welfare as a concept, but with regulation. but your problem is that you see only the costs, but not the benefits. to prove your point, your burden is to show that the costs exceed the benefits.

      now, the INTENDED effect of regulation is to require business to come up with a minimum standard of service. everything that you said comes from this fact.

      now, greater unemployment? you have to prove that. but as a general point, all regulation raises costs, but also delivers a benefit.

      but the larger point remains — THESE ARE ALL INTENDED EFFECTS OF REGULATION.

      second, and i’m shocked you dont know this — to mete out punishment, there must be due process first.

      finally, you are confusing “vague” to “i dont like it”. i can believe you dont like it, but its not, factually speaking, vague.

      its ok. dont reply to this. clearly, you dont know what unintended means. you just dont like regulations.

      if so, target your rage against the more offensive forms of regulation. there are easier targets.

      • June 26, 2011 3:38

        I think it’s you who don’t understand what “unintended consequences” mean.

        When businesses go out of business because of too much regulations, who would take care of animals? You? That would defeat the purpose of the law. If they strictly implement the law then people would be discouraged to establish any business that involves animals. Or… might as well not take care animals at all. Also, other people would be discouraged from taking animals as pets or engaging in a business that involves animals.

  3. antirand permalink
    June 27, 2011 3:38

    you are so pawned by gabbyd froilan. i am dumbfounded that you are still struggling to answer.

  4. GabbyD permalink
    June 27, 2011 3:38

    do you believe that animal welfare is the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of nazi ideology?

    • June 27, 2011 3:38

      It’s the blatant perversion of rights that defines the Nazi’s promotion and institutionalization of “animal welfare law” in Germany.

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 27, 2011 3:38

      actually, i agree with you that the nazis have a “perversion of rights”.

      but where is animal rights in this perversion of rights? you claim that animal welfare is REPRESENTATIVE of this perversion?

      that animal welfare IS THE REASON why the nazi’s have a perverted moral sense?

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        “but where is animal rights in this perversion of rights? you claim that animal welfare is REPRESENTATIVE of this perversion?”

        — First, there’s no such thing as individual rights in Nazi Germany, that’s why they simply used the term “animal welfare”. In a full-blown welfare state, individual rights don’t exist; only government funded welfare.

        Second, the term “animal welfare” is utterly fallacious and an illogic. It means that animals have a legal “right” or entitlement to “welfare”. Here, I’m now trying to make you understand what “animal welfare” means. I repeat, it means that animals have a legal status and right/entitlement to welfare. This is a perversion of the context and concept of rights I’m talking about.

        This is why I stated in this blog ( https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/animals-dont-have-rights-stupid/ ) that rights don’t and should not clash with each other.

        I said: ‘What do I mean by the phrase “rights should not clash with each other”? Animals’ right to be treated “humanely” requires certain legal mechanisms or institutions for its protection. It gives a certain legal status to animals. Without such legal mechanisms or institutions, such a right would be futile or unenforceable. You should know this, comrade. You see? I’m trying to educate you now.”

        I further stated: “The provisions of the Constitution is very clear, there is no such thing as animal right. Animals are not entitled to certain welfare entitlements if property owners cannot afford them. To give such rights or entitlements to animals is to disregard and sacrifice the rights of human beings who, by virtue of their nature, are rightfully entitled to rights. Thus, the Animal Welfare Act must be repealed for being anti-man, anti-human rights and unconstitutional.”

        As to this statement: “that animal welfare IS THE REASON why the nazi’s have a perverted moral sense?”

        It shows that they had a perverted concept of rights and welfare. It shows why they had more compassion for animals, yet they treated Jews as not merely second-rate humans but worse than dogs or animals. It shows why it is easier to feel compassion for animals.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 28, 2011 3:38

        ok. we’re making progress… now…

        “It shows why they had more compassion for animals, yet they treated Jews as not merely second-rate humans but worse than dogs or animals. It shows why it is easier to feel compassion for animals.”

        ok. we can agree that the reason nazi’s have a perverted value system because they treat some humans worse than some animals.

        logically then, if a person treats people better than animals, thats not perverted.

        animal welfare DOES NOT speak to this ranking at all. NOWHERE in the animal cruelty law does it say that animals are better than (some) people.

        thus, animal welfare has nothing to do with the perversion of nazis. we have agreed that their problem is the ranking of animals vs people.

        this conclusion comes DIRECTLY from what you just said was the perverted logic of the nazis.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 28, 2011 3:38

        in fact i should say something stronger. the nazi’s treated jews appallingly. they wanted to exterminate them. they killed thousands of jews. this is the sense in which the nazis treated them “worse” than animals. this is why the nazi’s were perverse.

        now to make the nazi comparison make sense, you have to prove that these laws make the same moral judgement as the nazis. you have to prove that these laws pave the way for the killing of many humans, with the goal to protect animals.

        so far i have seen no argument/evidence to this effect.

        unless you’ve got one?

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        You said: “ok. we can agree that the reason nazi’s have a perverted value system because they treat some humans worse than some animals. logically then, if a person treats people better than animals, thats not perverted. animal welfare DOES NOT speak to this ranking at all. NOWHERE in the animal cruelty law does it say that animals are better than (some) people. thus, animal welfare has nothing to do with the perversion of nazis. we have agreed that their problem is the ranking of animals vs people. this conclusion comes DIRECTLY from what you just said was the perverted logic of the nazis.”

        — You still don’t get it. Like I said, animals don’t have such right to welfare or whatever. This shows the illogic and the perversion by the Nazis of the concept of rights, which was adopted for sure by modern-day animal rights group. Such an invalid concept is an outrageous, dangerous fallacy perpetrated by some sick-minded, misguided people who have an overblown sense of kindness towards animals.

        The truth is, animals are considered by our legal system and laws as mere property, and this is the very reason why they do not deserve to be given some legal status. This is what Nazi Germany did. They gave legal status to animals.

        The problem with you is that you don’t understand the concept of rights, and why rights do not pertain to animals. Rights ONLY pertain to human beings. I’ve explained this concept on this blog, and I think if you’re really an honest critic, you should have read it so that you’d be able to understand where I’m coming from.

        A right is a moral concept, which is a condition of man’s existence. It simply means a right of action in a social context.Why do we need rights? In order to live properly as a human being, NOT as animals. What makes rights necessary? Without legal institutions and legal protections, rights are futile and unenforceable. That’s why the only proper function of government is to protect “rights”. Our Constitution merely recognizes individual rights and freedom. It does NOT create rights, and our constitutionalists know and understand that.

        As most legal luminaries and constitutionalists explained, “rights” require RECIPROCAL RESPONSIBILITY. As a rational animal you have to respect the rights of others if you want to live as a rational human being in a civilized society. Like I said many times before, a right does not impose obligations on others. Your only responsibility is to refrain from violating and interfering with other people’s rights. Your right ENDS when others’ begin.

        Let me stress my point. A right does not impose obligations on people. Your right to life does not legally require others or your neighbor or your government to feed you. Your right to property does not legally require others or your neighbor or your government to provide you house, car or any kind of property. The only responsibility of others is to BACK OFF and refrain from interfering with your activities or personal affairs.

        In this case, the alleged right of animals to humane treatment or not to be tortured imposed some forms of obligations on people. But in reality, it has become a LEGAL DUTY, because anyone who allegedly tortured or ‘inhumanely’ treated animals may go to jail or face some legal punishment.

        In regard to the concept of reciprocal responsibility, here’s my answer to an ignoramus of the first order on a Facebook group: “Like I said, idiot, animal rights contradict human rights because only humans can and should have rights. In reality and in legal terms, “rights” involve reciprocal responsibility. In the world of humans, you cannot violate the rights of others because that’s against the law. Your right ends when others’ begin.
        When you give such rights to animals, the principle of reciprocal responsibility is no longer possible because animals are not rational beings. They cannot respect your rights. Some animals can injure you or even kill you. That’s the illogic of animal rights, idiot.

        Let me quote Courtney Hamilton in regard to this matter:

        “The whole concept of ‘animal rights’ is a pathetic fallacy perpetrated by groups and individuals who have an overblown sense of kindness towards animals. In fact, animals that exist in society are the property of humans, which is why they do not deserve to have legal status. Imagine if animals did have legal status – all hunters whether in the Amazonian jungle or the Scottish highland could be charged with murder, a road kill would be a ‘hit and run’, or worst, manslaughter, pet ownership would be viewed as an illegal slave-market.

        “Humanities rational reasoning has conceived of what we know today as the concept of rights, for itself – not for any other living entity. The notion of rights is a moral concept that humanity needs in order to live our lives the way we see fit. Indeed, it is humanities right to use animals like any other resource around us – we have the right to eat animals for food, we have the right to kill certain animals for clothing, we have the right to experiment on animals, and yes, we have the right to use animals for our entertainment if need be.

        “Proponents of rights for animals say they want to put a halt to the sadistic treatment of animals by torturers (aka scientists), but the truth is the aim of animal-rights activists is to sacrifice and subjugate humanity to the level of animals. This is the logical conclusion of the idea of animal rights. You cannot attribute rights to dumb animals that are amoral and nonrational – to do that would turn rights from an important tool that preserves humanity to a tool that would liquidate humanity.

        “It comes as no surprise that some animal rights activists turn to terrorism to pursue their aims of destroying humanity, from digging up dead bodies to the attempted murders of scientists and lab technicians (including their families). Locking up the lunatic fringe of the animal-rights movement is not enough – what is needed is a new war against the very notion of ‘animal rights’. It needs to be confronted by a principled and intellectual war that will condemn ‘animal rights’ for what it is – logically false and morally, deeply repugnant.”

  5. June 27, 2011 3:38

    A notice to my troll-critics

  6. June 28, 2011 3:38

    @ GabbyD,

    So you believe that animal rights or welfare is not a perversion of individual rights?

    Don’t you think the first won’t clash with the second?

    And why do you think animals must be given some legal status or some rights?

    And why do you think that Nazi’s animal welfare law was not a perversion of rights (is that’s what you really believe)?

    I’d like to be enlightened and to know where you’re coming from.

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 28, 2011 3:38

      lets not talk about whether animal welfare === animal rights. i can accept that you BELIEVE THAT. i can tell you that OTHERS DONT.

      so lets not discuss that. no progress can be made there. however, this issue of nazi perversion i think, we can have agreement.

      we have ALREADY AGREED that the perversion lies in putting animals above humans.

      now, i’m merely saying exactly HOW the nazis put animals above humans, historically. in such a way that humans can be exterminated, ala vermin.

      they did NOT merely pass an animal welfare law. they actively hunted and killed some humans.

      can we agree on the historical record?

      this is what the nazi’s did. this is the perversion.

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        That’s the result of the perversion. That’s the effect. But what’s the source? It has to be ideological and philosophical.

        Cause and effect. You have to agree with me on this.

        There can be no extermination of humans and actively hunting and killing of humans, which you call perversion (and I agree with you on this) without their ideological basis.

        The ideological basis here lies in the Nazi political ideology inspired by various philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche (the sacrifice of others to oneself), Immanuel Kant (duty and sacrifive) and Hegel. And with the Nazi ideology, in which individual rights were non-existent but duty and sacrifice/altruism, they instituted the legal mechanisms of animal welfare.

        The legal principles, doctrines and establishments of every nation are based on certain philosophy or ideology. The Nazi ideology was based on the morality of altruism and self-sacrifice. It was no surprise that they put animals above humans. It was no surprise that Adolf Eichmann, the engineer of the holocaust, was a Kantian.

        So instead of using animals for experiments, they used captive Jews. How horrible and evil! http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/naziexp.html

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 28, 2011 3:38

        ah, thats interesting. a discussion of the underlying philosophy would be interesting. if you can make the connections you are alleged, that would be interesting.

        interesting yes, but somewhat besides the point. the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of nazism isnt animal welfare. many societies have animal welfare laws, yet somehow, managed NOT to cull human beings like the nazi’s did.

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        The political system of a government is and must be based on some political ideology/philosophy. A Facebook friend, Dr. Stephen Hicks, a philosopher and university professor, made a detailed study about the connection between Nietzsche and the Nazis. http://www.stephenhicks.org/tag/nietzsche-and-the-nazis/

        Dr. Hicks wrote a book and produced a documentary entitled Nietzsche and the Nazis.

        As to the ideology of the Nazis, I can only recommend a book written by Dr. Leonard Peikoff entitled Ominous Parallels… http://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-Brilliant-parallels-pre-Hitler/dp/0452011175

        You may watch how Hitler and the Nazis preached altruism in Germany before the Second World War… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUeS3e1VNU

        Here’s a good article published at MIT entitled “Hitler demanded altruism from his countrymen”. http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N53/honig.53o.html

  7. June 28, 2011 3:38

    From this source entitled WHY IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN:

    The actual cause of Nazism was ideological–but exactly the opposite ideology. Nazism flourished because of its ethics of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. Hitler himself stated the moral foundations of Nazism:

    “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance. . . . This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture. . . . The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call–to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness–idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”

    Historians usually dismiss such statements. The idea that self-sacrifice is synonymous with virtue is too uncontroversial for them to connect to Nazism. Thus, such pronouncements are usually regarded as mere window dressing to disguise the Nazis’ true agenda.

    But what if this view is wrong? What if it was precisely the Nazis’ most virtuous-sounding slogans that unleashed their evil on the world?

    You said: “interesting yes, but somewhat besides the point. the DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC of nazism isnt animal welfare. many societies have animal welfare laws, yet somehow, managed NOT to cull human beings like the nazi’s did.”

    I didn’t say nor argue that the defining characteristic of Nazism was “animal welfare.” It’s just one of the implementing effects of their ideology.

    Every wonder why all advocates of animal welfare/rights are leftist/statist/fascist/collectivist groups?

    No real, genuine pro-capitalist individuals or groups would ever advocate such a mediocrity because it is anti-man, anti-individual rights, anti-business, and anti-economics. But first, the concept of animal rights must be rejected because it is against reason.

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 28, 2011 3:38

      the key idea i want to know is whether the nazis are an appropriate comparison here. did what they do approximate what animal cruelty laws want to happen.

      “I didn’t say nor argue that the defining characteristic of Nazism was “animal welfare.” It’s just one of the implementing effects of their ideology.”

      as you’ve demonstrated, nazis have animal cruelty laws. further, i think, you believe that animal welfare comes directly as a consequence of nazi ideology.

      what i am saying is that animal welfare laws can arise INDEPENDENTLY and DIFFERENTLY from nazi ideology/facism. meaning, its NOT true that animal welfare ALWAYS is accompanied by nazi ideology.

      not all societies that have animal welfare laws have set to kill humans in such an organized fashion.

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        “the key idea i want to know is whether the nazis are an appropriate comparison here. did what they do approximate what animal cruelty laws want to happen.”

        — I’ve already explained it. I don’t know if you can’t just understand concepts or what.

        “as you’ve demonstrated, nazis have animal cruelty laws. further, i think, you believe that animal welfare comes directly as a consequence of nazi ideology.”

        – Of course. It’s ideological. The advocacy of PETA and other animal rights groups is ideological/philosophical as well.

        You said: “what i am saying is that animal welfare laws can arise INDEPENDENTLY and DIFFERENTLY from nazi ideology/facism. meaning, its NOT true that animal welfare ALWAYS is accompanied by nazi ideology.”

        — Well, I’d like you to explain that to me. That’s your assignment. I’ve already said my piece. Now it’s your turn. Tell me why you believe that “animal welfare laws can arise INDEPENDENTLY and DIFFERENTLY from nazi ideology/facism.”

    • GabbyD permalink
      June 28, 2011 3:38

      –> Tell me why you believe that “animal welfare laws can arise INDEPENDENTLY and DIFFERENTLY from nazi ideology/facism.”

      really? it ought to be clear. MANY SOCIETIES have animal welfare laws. yet none of these, save the nazi’s authorized the eradication of a religious group.

      there is no NECESSARY connection between having an animal welfare law and the nazi ideology. nor is it sufficient that having an animal welfare law means an inevitable slide into nazi ideology.

      this tells us that there is much much more to nazi ideology than animal welfare law. and much much more to animal welfare law, than nazi ideology.

      this is where the appropriateness of the comparison lies.

      this is a matter of logic (necesity and sufficiency arguments). yes, nazi-ism has animal welfare laws. but not all animal welfare laws come from nazi-ism.

      • June 28, 2011 3:38

        The link between the Nazi ideology and animal welfare are as follows:

        1. The Nazi’s distorted/perverted concept of welfare and rights. Most societies that give welfare or rights to animals have a distorted concept of rights/welfare.

        2. Their willingness and determination to put animals above humans.

        3. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish.

        4. Their anti-reason ideology.

        5. The Nazis genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals. http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html

        Like I said, the concept of animal rights/welfare is the result of people’s ignorance, contempt, misunderstanding of the concept of rights.

        Do I have to repeat this line again?

        “No real, genuine pro-capitalist individuals or groups would ever advocate such a mediocrity because it is anti-man, anti-individual rights, anti-business, and anti-economics. But first, the concept of animal rights must be rejected because it is against reason.”

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 28, 2011 3:38

        OMG. i understand that that nazi’s and hitler have their own reasons for animal welfare. i hear you on that.

        MY contention is that these reasons ARE THEIR OWN, and NOT anyone elses.

        to characterise ALL REASONS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE as nazi-ism is logically incorrect.

      • June 29, 2011 3:38

        You have to understand that you CANNOT divorce the Nazi ideology from their animal welfare program. That’s a fact.

        “to characterise ALL REASONS FOR ANIMAL WELFARE as nazi-ism is logically incorrect.”

        I think you missed my point here, that’s why it’s like you’re attacking a strawman.

        Let me make my point very clear.

        That’s not what I said. Nazism is just one type of anti-reason, anti-freedom and anti-rights collectivist/statist ideology. What I’m trying to argue is that the animal rights/welfare movement is just part and parcel of an anti-reason, anti-science, anti-capitalism, and anti-rights statist/collectivist ideology. This is the point of my blog, and Hitler, being a statist of the first order (and not merely a Nazi), is the forefather of the modern-day anti-capitalism, anti-reason, anti-science, anti-rights animal rights movements.

      • GabbyD permalink
        June 29, 2011 3:38

        let be clear here as well. my point is that animal welfare is a DISTINCT idea from the ideology/forces that led the nazi’s to take up animal welfare.

        but i understand that you feel ALL animal welfare movements come from the same ideological “vien”.

        but this is simply not true.

      • June 29, 2011 3:38

        “let be clear here as well. my point is that animal welfare is a DISTINCT idea from the ideology/forces that led the nazi’s to take up animal welfare.”

        — I disagree. The Nazi’s animal welfare program is ideological. It’s part of the whole statist ideology. It’s part of the Nazi’s perverted, distorted concept of welfare and their welfare state ideology.

        Any society that understands the proper concept of individual rights won’t enshrine or establish the perverted concept of animal rights. I’ve explained the reason why. But the number one reason is because the concept of animal rights is an anti-concept and anti-reason. This is the reason why the founding fathers of the United States never inserted any provision about protection of animals in the Constitution. In fact, they didn’t even believe that education, welfare or any form of welfare is a right. They believed that a “right” means a right of action in a social context. Take for instance this phrase: “The right to pursuit of happiness.” Do you see the INTELLECTUAL PRECISION of the founding fathers? They didn’t state, the right to happiness. They meant, the “right to PURSUIT” of happiness.

        This is why I’ve been telling you that it is important to understand the proper concept of rights, because rights are the central concept of proper political ideology and system. This is why I’ve been telling you that that the anti-concept of animal rights is a blatant, highly dangerous perversion and distortion of the proper concept of rights. And this is why I’ve been telling you that right should not and must not clash with each other.

        That’s why I asked you to answer the following questions:

        So you believe that animal rights or welfare is not a perversion of individual rights?

        Don’t you think the first won’t clash with the second?

        And why do you think animals must be given some legal status or some rights?

        And why do you think that Nazi’s animal welfare law was not a perversion of rights (is that’s what you really believe)?

        I’d like to be enlightened and to know where you’re coming from.

  8. random reviewer permalink
    July 26, 2011 3:38

    PETA are a bunch of Eco terrorist. They care more about animals than humans. I dont even know when that had to come down here. If you want proof of there stupidity watch Bullshit episode I linked here.:

  9. Christine Heidt permalink
    October 13, 2012 3:38

    I have never read or seen anything so distorted and stupid as this article.
    Lies and distortions are rampant, just in order to justify your own selfishness.
    And it is done in the most stupid and typical American way, catering to the lowest common denominator.
    If you count just a few animal activists, like Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Emmanuel Kant, Schopenhauer, Darwin, Edison, Tolstoi and Dr. Schweitzer, you will see that the animal activists are among the highest thinkers.
    Your article caters to the GWBs of America and their even more stupid admirers.

    • October 13, 2012 3:38

      LOL! Kindly state your rebuttal without typing words you actually don’t understand. Where are the lies and distortions? Cite them and make your own rebuttal.

  10. Eat People, Not Animals. permalink
    May 27, 2013 3:38

    You right-wing, compassionless piece of pro-human filth. Minds abundantly greater than yours – spiritually and intellectually – have, since as far back as the Egyptians were constructing the great pyramids, understood the wonder and revered the sanctity of nature.

    This is why it really gets on my tits when dull-minded cretins like you – Products of the digital age of detachment and desensitization – Begin spouting their dull opinions and misinformation to equally small-minded gaggles of meat frenzied peasants.

    Your tiny mind places more importance on the ‘taste’ and ‘nutritional value’ of a lump of meat than on the body and soul born and slaughtered in the colossal, bloody meat and dairy machine.

    Keep defending your filthy and cruel habit, you miserable little peon. You don’t have the intelligence or the integrity for empathy. All that matters to your little mind is what happens to you in your miserable little world. You’ll go through the rest of your (hopefully short) pathetic life completely oblivious to the freedom of being which accompanies the enlightenment of an existence which seeks to minimise the suffering caused to any and all living things.

    You have clogged your bowel and brain with too much meat and dairy. You have become the perfect little unquestioning consumer. The dirty little meat-eating machine. The willing little victim of mass, modern media.

    Have you ever set foot in an abattoir? Have you ever seen the killing process? Killed anything yourself?

    Why should I bother asking? I don’t even think the power of experience would be enough to switch on your little head.

    Enjoy living and dying ignorant. Scum.

  11. peta still sucks permalink
    October 11, 2014 3:38

    People Eating Tasty Animals: Newkirk’s Nazis since 1980

Trackbacks

  1. Arguing With Welfarist Idiots « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: