Animal Rights and the Globalist Agenda<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By Kathleen Marquardt
http://americanpolicy.org
While everyone knows that Animal Rights (A/R) is at the far left extreme of the political spectrum, most people do not understand what A/R is or where they fit into the New Age/Globalism scheme. A/R, like the Green movement, is a multimillion dollar business that is a cabal for taking people out of the natural structure of the earth. And while most people sense that A/R is extreme, they have no idea of what the A/R movement's core beliefs are. People confuse animal rights with animal welfare which are as different as black and white.
Animal Welfare is the humane caring for animals. Animal Rights is the use of animals to attack human existence. How is that? A/Rists believe that humans should not eat meat, wear leather, hunt or fish, use any medical research (past, present or future) involving animals or even have pets.
In speaking about animals in research, Tom Regan says that if scrapping animal-based research "means there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to." Think about that carefully. He is one of the major animal rights philosophers and he is saying that we should be dying of the plague, infection and polio. Why would anyone think these things let alone speak them aloud? I would posit that only someone hating his or her own species could utter such drivel. Man's tool, his major protection against bigger predators and the jungle that is the earth, is his mind. His mind has come up with antibiotics and immunizations, along with cars and planes and computers. It is man's mind, his ability to reason that A/Rists and Greens hate so much.
Reason is the ability that man has that animals do not. It is also something that the global elites would like to render obsolete in the general public. How can I say that? Look at what they have been teaching in our schools for the past half century – that moral relativism trumps reason and logic. If it does then there is no reason for man to exist; there is no good or bad; there is no difference between man animals and trees. And that benefits the globalists – it gives ordinary man no reason to be here; no reason to occupy space that could "better" be occupied by skunks and skunk cabbage. Man is a "despoiler" of Gaia, mother earth, and thus any movement to rid the earth of man has to be a friend of globalism – at least while they have common cause.
While visiting a friend (a man with a fairly high IQ but obviously educated with the Dewey method) we were talking about animal rights and I was trying to get across the idea that animal rightists use emotion rather than logic to decide how they feel about things. My friend said that both methods are valid and equal. Of course I tried to explain that with one you use critical thinking and provable facts to arrive at a conclusion and with the other you have to suspend critical thinking and accept the unknown. Silly me. He went to school where "critical thinking" does not resemble the critical thinking drummed into me in school. Today's critical thinking involves taking specific facts given to the student (without sound scientific backing) and then told to go from there. So I shut up. How do you get someone steeped in moral relativism to use rational thinking? You don't.
For the globalists, A/R is a perfect pawn. The globalists want to reduce the human population by up to 85%, what better ally to have than the A/Rists who hate humans; who want to erase humans from the face of the earth so the lion can lie down with the lamb (just don't tell them that the lion is having lamb for dinner) and no human will be there to intervene.
The A/Rists also have no compunction about lying to achieve their aims. I know, why should that seem strange in a morally relative world? But my world still has morality at its base. At legislative hearings animal rightists testify to outright lies. When researchers then testify to the truth and call them out, the A/Rist smile and say, "well, you won't be here every time; then we will carry the day." And they do not even exhibit shame for lying – instead they seemed proud. And why not? In a world of moral relativism everything is equal – lying/truth, good/evil. With A/Rists the ends do justify the means.
They are also Politically Correct and we are not. And don't you forget it. And Political Correctness (i.e. group ignorance passing as collective wisdom) pays. Colleges and universities would invite me to debate Ingrid Newkirk or her ilk. When I would say, "sure, just pay me what you are paying her," they would say that the $30,000 (or whatever sum it was) that they paid her was all they had, but that they needed the other side represented to show the reality. So wouldn't I do it for the students who were overly bombarded with animal rights and eco-disaster hogwash and needed a sane point of view? If they meant what they said to me, why did they invite her in the first place? I know, it was another faction (p.c.) in the school that extended the invitation and they wanted equal time. Sad but this is life in the new Globalist world.
A reporter from the Sacramento Bee set me straight early on in my tangles with A/R. He said, "Animal Rights is politically correct and you are not. So no matter how 'average American' you are, your moral values are no longer held in esteem. Even though most people are like you, they aspire to be vegan and animal rightists." That is, in their morally relevant minds, they aspire to being vegan and being greener than green and to reduce their carbon footprints to near zero. To truly comprehend that one would have to do more than suspend critical thinking, one would have to try to conjure up the absurd.
Our moral values are no longer esteemed. While they are the values based on reason, logic, sound science and common sense, they are less than ignored in today's globalist world. They are spat upon and derided. Civility itself has no place in the globalist world; if it did we would at least be allowed to hold dear our values and practice them in peace.
Thus my question, "What does the Animal Rights movement bring to the globalist table?" offers up this answer: a politically correct tool to reduce the human population. How? By shutting down medical research using animals which not only is detrimental to humans but animals too. By trying to force veganism on people through propaganda and by shutting down cattle yards and packing plants. By lying about animal welfare and by brainwashing our children in the schools.
Do we offer ourselves up to this moral bankruptcy? Not me.
Kathleen Marquardt is the vice President of the American Policy Center and author of the best selling book "Animal Scam." She is the founder of Putting People First, the first organization to oppose the Animal Rights movement. Distributed by the American Policy Center www.americanpolicy.org and the DeWeese Report www.deweesereport.com