Another (Barely) Veiled Threat of Murder by a Notable Animal Rights Radical
This comes very close to an outright death threat--without quite being one. An animal rights terrorist supporter named Jason Miller has strongly hinted that a UCLA animal researcher could be murdered, and indeed seems to hope that it will happen. From a preface to his piece against animal research in Thomas Paine's Corner:
I'm dedicating this piece to the courageous animal defenders and rescuers comprising the ALF, the Justice Department, the Animal Liberation Brigade, and the other militant direct action groups who are taking the fight to vivisectors and the rest of their ilk comprising the animal exploitation complex. Given the relentless nature of the systemic torment and slaughter of millions of other sentient beings that take place day after day, violent responses from nonhuman animal lovers are inevitable and are a morally acceptable means of extensional self-defense on behalf of the voiceless, defenseless victims. As my close colleague, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, surmised---and I back him 100% on this---the assassination of a vivisector or two would probably save millions of nonhuman animal lives. And given the escalating situation at UCLA, who knows what may happen?A little while back, Best, wrote an essay entitled, "It's War" published in the book Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?, stating in part:
Employing myriad tactics and strategies, those of us pursuing empty cages will prevail, and, as another steadfast ally of mine, Dr. Steve Best, stated in a speech he gave at Oxford in 2005, "wipe vivisection off the map." I yearn for that day.]
More and more activists grow tired of adhering to a nonviolent code of ethics while violence from the enemy [presumably, he means against animals] increases. Realizing that that nonviolence against animal exploiters in fact is a pro-violence stance that tolerates their blood-spilling without taking adequate measures to stop it, a new breed of freedom fighters has ditched Gandhi for Machiavelli, and switched from principled nonviolence with the amoral (not to be confused with immoral) pragmatism that embraces animal liberation “by any means necessary.”This is very scary stuff. And I worry that it presages an era in which civil discourse, comity, and the rule of law will be under concerted assault on many fronts.
A new civil war is unfolding—one between forces hell-bent on exploiting animals and the earth for profit whatever the toll, and activists steeled to resist this omnicide tooth and nail. We are witnessing not only the long-standing corporate war against nature, but also a new social war about nature...
Labels: Animal Rights. Terrorism. Violence. Threats. Animal Research.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:34 AM
17 Comments
17 Comments:
I think that Dr. Vlasak may be correct. Only time will tell whether such a thing happens and whether he was right.
With vivisection tolerated, we've got the culture of death. As I've said before, I don't believe that everyone is as good or as deserving as everyone else, and I put those who do vivisection at the bottom of the totem pole, and those who favor it below those who condone it, and those who condone it beneath those who don't. Very unfashionable of me, I know, but we've got some mess on our hands the way things are, and the anti-vivisectionists have better vision than those who don't oppose vivisection. If the devaluation of human life hadn't grown up alongside vivisection (never mind the rhetoric that it's "to save humanity" -- that's bull), it would be one thing -- but it DID. The animal rights people aren't waging war on humanity -- those who favor vivisection are.
We've already GOT civil discourse, comity, and the rule of law under concerted attack -- by the culture of death, which grew out of vivisection. What's scary is that "human exceptionalism" keeps wanting to have its cake and eat it too, and defend the "primacy" of humans, who if we really were exceptional we wouldn't DO vivisection, and just doesn't get it, and at the same time is trying to fight the culture of death, while misidentifying the enemy.
I don't think they need to present it as a war against corporate stupid/human inconsideration of all things non-human, though. What one lab animal suffers is justification enough for bringing down the whole sick enterprise, without which the world would be a better place, including for humans. And yes, Wesley, if it costs a couple of researchers' lives, I won't mind -- how are they different from embryo lives, anyway; in fact they are less valuable; the embryoes haven't turned out to be willing to do wrong yet.
For God's sake we don't mind perfectly innocent soldiers who are dedicated to doing the right thing and willing to risk their lives to protect us and our freedoms getting killed and maimed to defend us, but if it's mercenary, ambitious researchers who care more for their careers than anything else and are typical of science and medicine, who would freak out if they stubbed their toe, after all they're important little demigods, let them inflict suffering on the innocent for the sake of getting grants because after all, they're entitled, and God forbid anything happens to them, even though tolerating them is what has given us the callous state of "medicine" that no longer adheres to the Hippocratic Oath and is an integral part of the death culture. By the way the Oath says first do no harm. It doesn't say first don't harm only humans. They've abandoned that, and they DO harm now, to humans as well as to animals. As MD has said here, they see someone in bad shape now and they say hm, potential organ donor, not gee I hope he makes it or I wonder if he has kids. How were they trained? On animal experimentation, by those who experiment on animals, having been told "studies" matter and that it's a big deal they are going to be doctors, worshipped by society as those "researchers" are. A street kid in Newark could read it with their eyes closed and all these "educated" "bioethicists" don't get it? The whole thing is a shibboleth and a racket. There would be more honor in hurling one of those grenades than there would be in "discussing ethics." For starters, it would be more honest.
And in closing -- They SHOULD be scared. That may be all that works on them. Of course if they had a way, and the talent, to make more money doing something else, they'd drop the "research" like a hot potato and follow the money. It's scary for the lab animals. It's scary that people don't understand how vivisection has destroyed medical ethics and created the callous culture of death that SHS decries. It's scary to be a human patient now, or even their loved one whom that patient chose to speak for them and these barbarians run roughshod over it using "the rule of law." It's scary that SHS doesn't get the point.
They say that all is fair in love and war but I can't see this as real love and/or war!
I'll just start closing by saying that two or more wrongs don't make "ONE" right and I'll close with Vengeance is mine saith The Lord.
Don't look at me! :)
God Bless,
Peace
I wonder when these people are going to start sending death threats and fire bombing the property of those who hunt or eat meat.
If these people truly believe animals are equal to people and deserve rights, then killing and eating them really isn't any better than experimenting on them.
Hey Lampshade! Stop scaring me cause I was razed eating pigs since I was a child.
I can't help "IT" cause as far as I can remember my dad was called the "Seigneur" on the farm which means in French “the bleeder” and he always said as long as you bleed these pigs first then it's ok to eat them.
May God have mercy on my dad's Soul if he made a mistake.
Peace
"I wonder when these people are going to start sending death threats and fire bombing the property of those who hunt or eat meat."
I doubt they would go after hunters in a hurry. Hunters are armed and generally willing to defend themselves.
They'd likely just put the animal rights wacko's down like the vermin they are.
It has nothing to do with animals being equal to people! Or vice versa!
"Two wrongs don't make a right" parallels the truth that we can't get ultimate good out of the wrong of vivisection.
I think they have gone after hunters, especially re leghold traps. What hunters do to animals is nothing compared to what researchers in laboratories do, and hunting doesn't have anything to do with science and medicine being callous to suffering, even to human suffering, or with the death culture. That's why the animal rights people go after vivisectionists and not hunting -- and while they infiltrate slaughterhouses etc. and expose what goes on there, they don't go after them the same way, either. What they object to -- rightly -- is the greed, dishonesty, ambition, and cruelty of vivisection, and they can see how it is bad for human health as well. Moreover, the labs are closed to the public. Anyone can know what goes on in hunting, and what goes on in slaughterhouses, people have an idea, but people figure they have to eat. What goes on in labs is deliberately kept from the public eye, and impossible to do anything about what with laws protecting and enabling it and the institutions that carry it out, and the public misperception that it's "for the good of humankind" and the public greed for "cures." When was the last time you saw a picture of what goes on in a laboratory next to one of those stupid ribbons or on an invitation to a charity ball? They are fighting a LOT, and it's not as easy to bring to public attention as abuses in slaughterhouses, the fur industry, hunting, etc. are.
And honestly, considering the horror of what goes on in the labs, and the wrongness of it, I'm surprised that a researcher hasn't been killed by animal liberationists already. For all the invective hurled at them, they've shown more restraint and more respect for life, law, and decency, even for the lives of those they know to be foul and cruel, than than the researchers and those who support them have. And if they crossed the line, it would have been a long time coming and no it would not lower them to the same level as those researchers they killed.
There's a vast difference between breaking the law in the cause of justice and doing the unjust within the confines of the law. The animal rights people up to now have been Socratean in their restraint and obedience to the law. It would not be impossible to do what SHS says they are being urged to do without ever being found out. But nevertheless, they haven't done it. They're trying every which other way they can. I don't think it would harm the animal rights movement if they did it, either; the animal rights movement is castigated enough as it is. But they're not doing it. And if they do, we'll see what happens as a result.
Ianthe, do you think that maybe and seeing that it is Sunday, is it possible that when Jesus said that He never lost one that His Father gave Him, is it possible that He was talking about all Cells? While you answer that question could you also tell me if He possibly sent you to help all these poor innocent Cells and will we someday proclaim with our souls, "My Lord how great thou are"?
Did I bite off more than I can chew with these questions for you?
I hear ya! You been drinking again Victor?
I'm not telling you on the grounds that "IT" might incriminate me and besides my wife is calling me now to eat chicken! :)
Peace
"That's why the animal rights people go after vivisectionists and not hunting -- and while they infiltrate slaughterhouses etc. and expose what goes on there, they don't go after them the same way, either. What they object to -- rightly -- is the greed, dishonesty, ambition, and cruelty of vivisection..."
They object to anything that has to do with animals. Using them in a movie, breeding them for pets, breeding them for conservation, eating them, hunting them, population culling, etc. is all unaccetpable and deemed cruel to them, so of course they would be against animal research as well.
PETA stated that those who eat meat are no better than Jeffrey Dahmer, and I'm sure those who are making death threats and blowing stuff up would agree with that statement.
They also support the threatening, harassment and destroying of property of those who are not animal researchers, but engage in other "animal exploitation," such as eating meat and hunting - and why wouldn't they? If animals are equal to people, it is just as rehensible.
If there was a country out there raising humans to eat, as well as using them for medical research, you wouldn't say "Oh, eating them is okay, but the research has got to stop."
I understand the reason you see animal research as being wrong, but its not the same reason why they see it as wrong, and that's why I think they really need to be stopped (and because I think it is wrong to kill a human for these reasons).
If they are "victorious" over animal researchers, who will they start to focus on next?
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2009/2009-04-20_cattletruck.htm - "TODAY WAS THEIR MACHINES, TOMORROW IT WILL BE THE EXPLOITERS"
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2009/2009-05-03_bullfighters.htm
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2009/2009-04-23_oregongamefarm.htm
http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/communiques/2009/2009-04-18_guadalajarapetshop.htm
Plenty more here http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/ :)
I don't subscribe to Jesus and really don't understand the questions.
I don't regard animal rights activists as "they" -- I'm one of them. There are all kinds and degrees of stances and work being done within the movement, which is better understood from the inside than from the outside.
Point well taken!
My apology Ianthe.
Peace
Victor: Don't worry about it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home