PETA's Ingrid Newkirk: Master Propagandist
In researching for my book on animal rights, I tried to get an interview with PETA's alpha wolf, Ingrid Newkirk. She declined and through her assistant, suggested I obtain her views from her books and articles. So, I have been doing a little on-line research and came across Newkirk's MY SPACE.com page.
This illustrates how PETA leaves no rock unturned in its quest for converts to the animal rights cause, in this case, young people. Note the wacky photo, designed to appeal to kids and teenagers. She let's the kids know she is a Pisces. And true to PETA's unremitting approach, she never stops pushing the agenda, particularly her books aimed at kids.
Most adults do not respond to the hyper emotionalism and anti-human moral equivalence ("Holocaust on Your Plate," etc.) that are the hallmarks of PETA's advocacy. But kids and teenagers are raised in a relative milieu today and are taught to feel more than think. PETA's taking the time to put up a MY SPACE page, and design it explicitly to appeal to the young, is brilliant--and worrying.
Labels: PETA. Master Propagandists
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:20 PM
21 Comments
21 Comments:
She's got about 913 friends on her buddy list.. statistically.. Wesley... that's just a fart on the myspace ocean! Some buddies of mine got 10 times that number.. and their not running any type of organization... :) no need to worry man! She's just another small crazy fish in the ocean...
oh and by the way.. her carefully designed image to appeal to us mindless kids... will most likely scare them away... hehe :D crazy old middle aged woman holding flowers in her teeth? Run!
Good to hear. Thanks, Ricardo.
What is truly scary about Newkirk and PETA is the fact they hide their true agenda under the guise of "animal rights" and concern about cruelty. They are totally opposed to the domestication of animals because of some wrongheaded ethical belief that is so far out of the mainstream, they would be laughed right off the national stage.
That is why they are so big on vegetarianism, spaying and neutering pets, and euthanizing animals when nobody is paying attention.
It would be a cold day in you-know-what I'd ever give up my dogs.
Susan -
See, that's the problem. Their ethical belief about the separation of animals and people doesn't make sense so it's hard to combat the ideal they're really trying to present, because the only thing that filters into people's heads is, "We're against cruelty toward animals." 99% of human beings are against cruelty to animals (I'd likely take on anybody who tried to hurt my kitty-babies, I admit it), but the extremism is too much for people to understand and they don't want to try to think about it because it would require work.
Ricardo -
LOL yeah... the sad part is that some people will see, "prevent animal cruelty" and go, "Aww," and never realize that she wants to take away their pet cats and dogs and force them to live in the wild, fend for themselves, and possibly die young and scared and hungry. Having said that I just depressed myself so I have to go cuddle my cats, so excuse me.
PETA doesn't beleive people shouldn't have pets. Ingrid Newkirk has written a book on keeping cats as pets (Love that Cat) and the Peta website directly rebuts this assertion (http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp)
Moses: You should read the answers to the question on the address you posted more carefully. It very cleverly never says yes. It says that people should adopt cats and dogs in shelters to avoid their suffering. It also wants to do away with breeders and have all pets neutered. It also says not to allow your dog to have a litter because you don't know what will happen to the puppies if you give them away. If there are no breeders and all pets are neutered, where will the next generation of cats and dogs come from? The simple fact is that PETA believes that ideally, there should be no dogs and cats. Until then, they want those in existence well cared for.
Gary Francione is less obfuscatory than PETA. He states unequivocally that there should be no domesticated animals, including pet cats and dogs. But he too believes that the ones that are here should be well cared for, which is why he owns (my term, not his) three dogs.
I think the measures PETA advocates make perfect sense in an over-population situation (which is their justification for these measures) I don't see Newkirk giving up her pets or recommending others do so though. I'd need more evidence to beleive this is what PETA wants to see happen.
I don't beleive Francione is connected to PETA in any way (in fact he has been highly critical of them). That being said I would like to know his justification for that. Could you please post a reference to where he said that. Thanks.
Moses: He said it to me.
Moses:
There is NO PET OVERPOPULATION. That is a myth concocted by the likes of Newkirk and her buddies. Wayne pacelle, a friend of Newkirk has said numerous times, "one generation and out" to refer to the extinction of domestic dogs and cats.
Just try to get near my collies and pet birds, PeTA. The lovebird might have your finger for dinner.....
Getting rid of domesticated animals is the ultimate goal of the extremists from PETA. It's the logical outcome from their extremism. They just don't want the public to know it.
After all, if you aren't allowed to eat meat or wear clothing from animals, why have chickens, sheep, cattle, pigs, and other types of livestock? If using animals for entertainment is "exploitation," there would be no need for horses (even for riding, for that is "cruel") and other such animals used for "entertainment." Same is true for having animals as pets, which the extremists call "companion animals." The animals should all be turned loose, but of course if all dogs and cats are spayed and neutered, they will be out of existence anyway.
Never kid yourself what these people REALLY are. They are as bad as the religious fundamentalists.
Susan: They ARE religious fundamentalists--just not a theistic religion.
Wesley J. Smith: You said Francione is less obfuscatory than PETA regarding making domesticated animals extinct so I assumed you meant he publicly made this point. Is there no video, book or website you can point me to so I can confirm this?
BB:
If you have animals in shelters and living in alleys because there isn't anyone willing to take care of them isn't that over-population. I assume you accept that there are shelters and stray cats and dogs. Is "over-population" the wrong word then? Also, could you please post a reference to where Wayne Pacelle has called for the extinction of pets. He says he said it once in response to a question about “heirloom breeds”. He also said his comment had been distorted by his advisaries. (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/07/desperate-disto.html)
So, from what you said, I assume there are many other places where he has said this (presumably regarding pets; not livestock breeds). I don't mean to sound adversarial but a lot of odd claims are being made here. If they are true I would understandably like confirmation of them. Thanks.
Yes. Go to his WEB site and read his essays. He says that humans have no right to treat any mammal as property because they are sentient. He argues this is a matter of important rights. Eventually, he hopes to see the erradication through birth control of all domesticated animals.
Also, check out his writing on abolition.com.
Yes, it is fact the ultimate goal of "animal rights" is the abolition of domesticated animals. After all, it is "slavery" to these crazies who support animal "rights."
I recommend people do a Google search on animal rights and domestication of animals. The information you find is very interesting and illuminating.
If these people's agenda were brought out into the open, they would have NO support whatsoever from the vast majority of the public.
I strongly suspect the vast majority of people who donate to PETA, HSUS, and similar extreme groups have NO idea what the true agenda is. They simply want animals to be treated humanely.
Susan: You win a Kewpie Doll. That is exactly right. Most people support "animal rights" because they conflate it with being humane and good to animals. But that is actually and accurately animal welfare.
Okay, this is messed up -
Why do they want to eliminate cats and dogs?
Now I'm against forcing animals to live outside if you keep them as your own four-legged babies (my opinion is the minute you adopt them they're family and should be treated as such - indoor living!), but I have dozens of cats living around this area out in the out-doors and they do very well for themselves with some added assistance from us humans.
Even if the zelots wanted to erradicate human ownership of animals, why does that call for getting rid of the critters? What on earth makes that the goal of their twisted plot?
I was always given the impression that they're anti-human: force a separation between humans and animals so the animals can live free on their own, cats and dogs and lions and tigers and you get the idea. I never realized they called for killing off the species. That's baloney.
I search abolition.net (i assume you meant abolition.net because abolition.com doesn't have anything to do with animals) using Google and nothing came up for Pacelle's name. I didn't see any of his article when I went to the site. I looked at Pacelle's site and didn't see any articles that talked about the extinction of animals. Is there a particular article that you can point me to that outlines his rational for wanting domesticated animals to no longer exists? Thanks in advance.
Carl Sagan is famous for having said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Here is a summary of our discussion:
Claimant: Susan
Extraordinary Claim: PETA has a hidden agenda
Evidence Provided: None
Claimant: Wesley J. Smith
Extraordinary Claim: PETA wants to extinguish domesticated animals
Evidence Provided: PETA urges people to adopt animals from shelters and get them neutered and end breeding program as a solution to the pet over-population problem.
Remarks: This is a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's as tenable as saying "condom manufactures want to end the human race".
Claimant: Wesley J. Smith
Extraordinary Claim: Gary Francione states unequivocally that there should be no domesticated animals, including pet cats and dogs
Evidence Provided: "He told me"
Remark: Not nearly enough evidence
Claimant: BB
Extraordinary Claim: The pet over population problem is a myth concocted by Ingrid Newkirk and her friends.
Evidence Provided: None
Claimant: BB
Extraordinary Claim: Wayne Pacelle said numerous times, "one generation and out" to refer to the extinction of domestic dogs and cats.
Evidence Provided: None
Remark: In 1993 at an agriculture forum Pacelle said regarding heirloom breeds: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding..". On his website he says "At the time, I did
not consider the fate of such breeds an ethically significant dilemma (my views have become more nuanced on that topic through the years)".
Conclusions: I asked repeatedly for references to justify the claims being made and never got any. I think at this point it's fair to start wondering who the real propagandists are. It's also tempting to wonder if what we are seeing on this forum are symptoms of paranoid delusion.
Moses: I told you Francione told me. That is direct evidence.
But it is all over his advocacy if you would bother to take the time to look. He believes animals cannot be property. No animals, for any resaon, no matter the human benefit--meaning no seeing eye dogs, no pets, no cattle, no sheep, no lab rats, no nothing.
This is from an interview published with Francione in The Abolitionist: "The animal rights position maintains that animals have one right: the right not to be treated as the resources or property of humans. Treating animals are property is inconsistent with according animals any moral significance at all; as long as animals are property, then they will necessarily be excluded from the moral community.
Our various uses of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, and science all assume that animals are our resources, and none of these forms of institutionalized exploitation would be permissible were we to recognize that animals have this one right not to be property."
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview-issue03
_gary.francione_q&a.2006.shtml
It can't get much clearer than that. If an animal cannot be property, it by definition, cannot be domesticated.
And, moreover, he is even more specific here:
"I am very clear that the right not to be property is another way of talking about the right to equal inherent value, the right not to be a human resource. If we were to recognize such a right (initially as a moral/social matter and later protected by law), we would stop bringing domestic animals into existence altogether and we would thus eliminate 99.99% of the “conflicts” that exist between humans and nonhumans. There may be conflicts between humans and non-domesticated animals living in the wild, but our recognition that nonhumans have inherent value would require that we respect the environment of these nonhumans and that we give equal consideration to their interests."
That's about as explicit as you can get.
So, what human use of animals do you think that animal rights/liberationists support? If they support the human use of animals, they aren't animal rightists almost by definition.
(Peter Singer is not an animal rightist, so don't quote him.)
Paranoid? Hardly.
Moses,
Go to PeTA or HSUS'website or read ANY interview with Pacelle or Newkirk. It's there in black and white. Just DO IT. Pacelle said it to the NY Times (you can find the interview as well as I can), Newkirk told it to Vogue and numerous other magazines.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home