Disguises of Good

November 20, 2013 by jwcoolz Leave a comment

Beast Blog 5

In an effort to come to terms with the dichotomy of animal and man, I continue to examine those agendas of those who champion animal rights. In the 2011 article Animal Welfare: A Good Cause Gone Bad, posted on Liberty Gibbert.com. This article is saturated with examples of misguided intent. The article compelled me to discuss it twice. This article should have been titled Disguises of Good. The article continues to promote man’s duplicitous relationships. It also made me realize how naive we are in determining the good will of animals. Historically there was some merit to the information.

Early settlers and industrialization created conditions that cause myopic owners to mistreat their pit ponies. The article reveals that some organizations have admirable intentions. It also reveals those same organizations who championed animals’ entitlement to fair and good treatment have hidden agendas. Anyone would commend abolitionist William Wilberforce and other prominent citizens for their advocacy of animal protection.

Their efforts encouraged laws such as Hitler’s Tierschutzgesetz, the Cruelty To Animals Act of 1835, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and internationally located branches in Northern Ireland (1836), Scotland (1839), the United States (1866), Australia (1871) and New Zealand (1882). Those who chose to become vegetarians abstaining from eating the flesh of animals are in good company. They share a common goal with Adolph Hitler. He too felt compassion for the animal kingdom. He like other predators would not use violence to consume animal flesh. Researching the premise of their efforts in conjunction with this article led me to the article, Martin G. Hulsey’s article, The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection. Here Huley discusses sociologists Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax article Anthrozooz. The Anthrozooz article includes the following passage:

“On one romantic date, his female companion ordered sausage, at which Hitler looked disgusted and said: ‘Go ahead and have it, but I don’t understand why you want it. I didn’t think you wanted to devour a corpse… the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!'”

The article goes on to debate whether Hitler was really a vegetarian. According to Hulsey, Arluke and Sax also noted Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

“The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.”

These well-meaning people would enact violence on those who do not share their beliefs.

I submit that any parties committing acts of unprovoked acts of violence under the guise of protecting another holds malice in their hearts. They also hold hidden agendas.

Many of those organizations had great intentions. Conflicts arose when corporate agenda and animal rights clash. Ultimately boundaries clash and those established boundaries dissipate under the reality of profit. Man’s tendencies to supersede the rights of animals for his own comfort is disturbing.

Readers are further informed that esteem professionals like Australian bioethicist Peter Singer used publications such as the Bible and Animal Liberation to support their extreme philosophies. Singer’s work proposes moral justifications coining the term speciesism to denote conflict between animal and man (1975). Using a theological perspective Singer rejects the philosophical notion of inalienable rights for both animals and humans. The article suggests that Singer believes the issue of treatment resides in Here readers are prompted to accept that good intents can sometimes pose endangerment. The greatest example is the extremists who tend to advocate that animal rights should be presented in the courts. Nothing is further from the truth. Can an organization which euthanizes its charges be trusted to champion the cause of animals who would gladly relinquish their right for compassionate care? To me, this seems to be another ploy to exploit those whom polite society is charged to protect.

Consider the land developer who proposes to take on a species dwelling on land that is ideal for the next high rise, parking garage, or leisure property. The developer promises the courts to relocate the species in question in a humane manner. Once given guardianship, the developer rounds up all the animals relocating them to a habitat that is not suitable to the species’ survival. Has the developer fulfilled his or her obligations?

To answer this question most legal systems will allow the vested parties to quibble in front of a jury exhausting days and opportunities for said animals to thrive in their chosen habitat. Another consideration is how would the court determine if said animals are made whole? Answering these questions has little bearing on the adequate survival species. What is important is that man comes to grips with the responsibility of adequately caring for animals.

I see this whole animal property rights as a ploy to rob animals of their habitats. There appears to be no escaping the double standard man inflicts on animals. It is my opinion that man considers animal rights movement a method of advancing agendas than protecting animals from human whim.