Goebbels:"The Fuhrer [Hitler] is a Convinced Vegetarian"
Were Nazi's the first government to declare "that non-human animals have 'rights'?”
Fred
"Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation."
[http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html]
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, 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."
Irrespective of whether Hitler, Goebbels or other leading Nazis were, in fact, devout vegetarians, their self-serving rhetoric, claiming the moral high ground, is consistent with that which has appeared from time to time on rec.food.veg. In that newsgroup, we have seen omnivores characterized as "barbarians," "animal-killers," "murderers," and so forth. Clearly, many contemporary vegetarians regard themselves as ethically superior to omnivores.
Claims of ethical superiority are also a characteristic of the contemporary animal "rights" movement. One can hardly find publication from that movement that doesn't beg the question of "cruelty" with respect to practices of research, sport or cuisine. The epithet "cruelty-free" as applied to cosmetics has become popular in AR circles, despite its questionable veracity. Of course, what constitutes cruelty is a subjective matter, and the practices proclaimed as cruel by animal "rights" activists are more often that not legal, despite the existence of laws prohibiting cruelty to animals.
Implicit in this preoccupation with being "cruelty-free" is that non-adherents are cruel. As such, the claim of ethical superiority is one indisputable parallel between the Nazi animal protectionists and the modern AR movement. For example, consider the claims of moral superiority and the references to Eastern philosophy that are prevalent in the following translation of a Nazi article that was kindly provided to me by a friend:
The following is a translation of document #186 in Medizin im Nationalsozialismus by Walter Wuttke-Groneberg (Rottenberg: Shwaebische Verlagsgesellschaft) 1982.
The author of the book believes that this article demonstrated how the Nazi party would gain support by appealing to interest groups whose main concern were issues other than national politics. He also believes that the Nazi's regarded these measures as progressive and he juxtaposes this "reform" with the medical research atrocities in concentration camps.
Translator's remarks and literal German words in {}.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!
The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!
The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's {italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...
The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.
Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.
We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed! The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:
Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!
A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!
Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt
*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.
From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.
In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty. The "antivivisection" law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that effect.
Some might seem content to totally dismiss the phenomenon of Nazi animal protection as a propaganda maneuver, but Nazi animal protection ran far deeper than the proclaimed abolition of vivisection. Consider this excerpt from Arluke and Sax (op. cit., p. 9):
"The preoccupation with animal protection in Nazi Germany was evident in other social institutions and continued almost until the end of World War II. In 1934, the new government hosted an international conference on animal protection in Berlin. Over the speaker's podium, surrounded by enormous swastikas, were the words "Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals for their value and service" (Meyer 1975). In1936 the German Society for Animal Psychology was founded, and in 1938 animal protection was accepted as a subject to be studied in German public schools and universities."
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.
Because the officially-proclaimed absolute ban on vivisection was never codified in the Reichstag, the claim that Germany's ban on vivisection was, in part, a propaganda maneuver has some merit. However, this inconsistency provides yet another parallel to the contemporary animal "rights" movement. The prominent AR organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, spent (and is still spending) a large sum of money in a fruitless legal attempt to obtain control over the well-known Silver Spring Monkeys. One could argue that this money could have been better spent in other, less newsworthy efforts at animal protection. There are other well-known publicity antics. PETA's penchant for pie-in-the-face publicity stunts has drawn criticism from other AR proponents. For example, Gary Francione was quoted as criticizing PETA for it's "Three Stooges" approach to animal protection. Thus, like animal protectionist elements of the Third Reich, it seems that some components of the contemporary AR movement are, in part, highly motivated by considerations of public relations and propaganda.
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.
It is not my purpose to equate contemporary animal "rights" activists with Nazis. Although there are clear parallels, there are distinctions as well.
However, whenever animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentler society, it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the only modern civilization to officially embrace a philosophy of animal rights did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle
[http://www.hitler.org/links/NAP_5.html]
Are Aniamal Rights Adovates the New Aryans?
Compare a comment I recieved on my blog from an animal rights adovate and the Nazi ideology.
Fred
-At 7:08 AM, Anonymous said...
What extremes you animal-hater extremist will go to try to prove that animal advocates are evil - likened to the Nazis. laughable, if not so dangerous to the millions of animals who are tortured, maimed, subjected to invasive unnecessary procedures in research labs, imprisoned and helpless condemned to misery and suffering until murdered by you self-annointed supreme beings - the human. BEWARE OF MAN!
-The Nazi ideology justified similar arguments by inequality. No difference between man and animal was seen, but instead a hierarchical continuum. At the top of the Nazi view of nature were the racially pure Aryans. Then came the animals, of whom the highest and most respected were the strong beasts that subdued all the others under their might. Then came the other animals and finally, subhumans.
[http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494]
Animal Rights in the Third Reich
Kaltio 2/03
Finnish text: Aslak Aikio
English translation: Anniina Vuori
Nazi Germany, the archetypal image of evil, pioneered the protection of animal rights. The main principles of nazis' protection of animals have been generally accepted today and integrated into the western legislation. Even their strictest ideas prohibiting animal abuse are still alive.
The pioneering role of the Third Reich had in developing modern understanding of the protection of animals is a tough spot for today's animal rights movement. For the brutal social experiment of the Third Reich was also an experiment of a society with a goal of executing a radical version of animal rights. Due to the awkwardness of the issue, many animal rights activists keep quiet about it. For instance, the whole issue is left unmentioned in the classic Animal Liberation (1975) by Peter Singer. In the meticulous history section, he leaves the period 1880-1945 out completely. Because the writer is obviously well acquainted with the topic, it is hardly an accident. He refers to the nazis' human tests comparing them to the modern vivisection and brings up the Buddhist principles of protecting animals as a contrasting idea. This is troublesome reading to someone who is familiar with the subject, because also nazis appealed to Buddhism as the opposite of the animal hostility in Christianity - which they considered one branch of Judaism.
Some people resort to denial as a solution for the issue. It is typical to deny Hitler's vegetarianism with the suspicion that he once ate a dove. It is easy to find outright lies in different militant animal rights and vegetarism homepages where the whole matter is denied. However, this peculiar subplot in the history of animal protection will not simply disappear. That is why the Third Reich similarities with and particularly differences from modern animal rights thinking should be recognized, both by animal rights activists and their opponents.
The strictest animal rights laws in the world
On 28th of August, 1933, millions of Germans had gathered in front of the radio. People had gotten familiar with the ways of the new leaders during the past six months the Nazis had been in power, and they had gotten used to Nazis meaning what they said. People had learned to follow important speeches. It was known that Hermann Göring, the cabinet minister of Prussian affairs in the Third Reich, was to hold an important speech regarding policy. The minister discussed only one issue: the prohibition of vivisection he had ordered two weeks earlier. Vivisection referred to animal testing, specifically torturous operations made without anesthesia or pain relief, cutting animals up alive. He justified his order by referring to the unique brotherhood the German race historically had with animals, and pleaded to how animals and Aryans had shared their homes, fields and battles in co-operation and as brothers-in-arms for many millennia. In the end, Göring made clear what awaited people who broke the rule. Those who thought they could still treat animals as lifeless objects were to be sent to concentration camps immediately.
Göring's tough policies were no exception. The view was not political rhetoric but the tough core of Nazism, the idea of an alliance between the Aryan race and nature. Thus, the Nazis made animal protection laws which were the strictest in history right after they had seized power. Natural conservation areas were established all around the country to protect endangered species. Already in the early plans, whole areas like Lithuania and great parts of Ukraine were outlined for afforestation into their natural state as soon as their population was destroyed. The Third Reich was the first to place the wolf under protection, which deed in its own time was quite incredible. Minute regulations were drawn up even for the treatment of fish and lobsters. The regulations were also guarded; of all the German professions, the greatest percentage of veterinarians belonged to the Nazi party.
The German animal protection law (Tierschutzgesetz), effective since the end of 1933, was the first in the world that defined rights for animals as they were (um ihrer selbst wille), regardless of the needs or feelings of humans. The law was also the first one to abolish the distinction between domestic and wild animals. It defined as legal subjects "all living creatures that in general language and biologically regarded as animals. In a criminal sense, there is no distinction between domestic and wild animals, higher or lower valued animals, or useful or harmful animals to humans." The phrasing is somewhat different nowadays, but all western animal rights laws are based on these principles.
Several Nazi leaders, like Hitler and Himmler, were vegetarians and nature preservers for ideological reasons. However, Hitler apparently lapsed every now and then into eating the Austrian mountain delicatessen of his childhood, sausage, game animals, and air-dried ham. Nevertheless, part of his plans was to ban meat eating in the whole Europe governed by Aryans.
Himmler hated hunting. He noted to his Finnish-Estonian doctor: "How can you, Herr Kersten, enjoy shooting from a shelter at helpless creatures, who wander in the forest innocent, unable to protect themselves, and unsuspecting? It is real murder. The nature is tremendously beautiful and every animal has the right to live." Apparently, he also used the concept "animal rights" for the first time in its modern sense in an SS family publication in 1934. In his writing, he admired Germans who did not kill rats but sued them as their equals. In the court, the rats had a defendant and they were given a chance to change their ways and stop romping in the grain store. This man, who expressed deep and kind affection towards nature and animal, was on the other hand a cold-blooded fanatic, who commanded SS troops, Gestapo, and the concentrations camps in Germany with well-known efficiency.
The Swedish historian Peter Englund has observed the inconsistent personalities Nazi leaders had. Several of them hated humans, and it was hard for them to act naturally in the company of other people. They substituted this with a close relationship to animals. The pronounced love for their pets of for instance Hitler and Rudolf Hess, in addition to deep conviction to nature preservation, were inner arguments for "I am a good person, without a doubt". Englund's argument that turns the issue into psychology is somewhat weak, but it can still make a lot of sense.
No difference between animals and people
The image Nazis had about the relationship of man and nature was mystical and vulgarly Darwinist. Modern animal rights movements base their ideas on the equality of humans and animals. The Nazi ideology justified similar arguments by inequality. No difference between man and animal was seen, but instead a hierarchical continuum. At the top of the Nazi view of nature were the racially pure Aryans. Then came the animals, of whom the highest and most respected were the strong beasts that subdued all the others under their might. Then came the other animals and finally, subhumans. The ones on top of the hierarchy had the moral duty to defend their weaker brothers. Humanity as a concept was denied completely.
Nazis solved the ethical problems of animal rights by drawing a line between animals and subhumans. Thus, strict laws on animal protection and guidelines for animal testing did not apply to subhumans. If someone, for instance, had transported slaughter animals in the same way Jews were transported to extermination camps, that person would have been shot. However, strict animal testing guidelines had to be moderated in practice because most doctors were not willing to replace test animals with humans. Convinced Nazis, like Mengele, were an exception. As has been claimed many times, the most brutal part is that Nazis' human tests were partly successful. For example, the suitable treatment for hypothermia is still based on them.
There is a long ideological tradition behind the Nazi ideas of animal rights. In the spirit of nationalism, German thinking had already imagined a connection with the nature and animals during the rise of Romanticism in the 19th century. One of the central opinion leaders was composer Richard Wagner who justified both vegetarianism and opposing animal tests with anti-Semitism. In his opinion, meat eating and animal oppression originated from the Jewish and, they had destroyed the pure German race. In his opinion, animal testing was connected with the Jewish kosher-slaughtering.
Thoughts and feeling of responsibility of the Nazis to act directly against vivisection laboratories and their personnel originated directly from Wagner. Even Jewish persecution was partly justified as animal protection: the Jews oppressed animals, therefore attacking them was defending the weak and, as such, a moral duty. This makes it difficult to consider the more progressive ideas of Nazism; they were connected directly with the darkest sides of their ideology.
The burden of history
Most of the Nazis' animal protection rules were dissolved after the fall of the Third Reich. The wolf was hunted extinct, and nature preservation areas were cultivated. In Germany, history burdened everything connected with nature preservation and vegetarianism until the beginning of the 70s. Some older Germans still connect vegetarianism first with Hitler. Third Reich's views of animal protection come up every now and then within the right-wing parties. In England, some neo-Nazis who have read more about the subject have tried to join in the Animal Rights movement. There has been discussion of the Green Nazi phenomenon in the United States, and Göring's famous speech can easily be found on the Internet's neo-Nazi websites.
In Finland, the ideological tradition of the Nazis lives on in Pentti Linkola's thoughts. Linkola has been classified as a follower of the ideology in international debates. Nothing is known of the matter in Finland, so the issue has not received attention. Awareness of the ideological tradition can, however, be found even in Linkola's own texts. This can be seen perhaps the clearest in his writing for the magazine Hiidenkivi (1/2001) and the debate that followed it. Linkola defines "ideologies like Nazism, which highlight the quality and moral backbone of humans" as ethically superior and regrets the unfortunate end of WWII. Perhaps the most important distinction is that when Nazis classify people's relationship with nature according to race, Linkola does the same according to their social standing and political ideologies. He sees working class and left-wing parties as dangerous to the nature and the society, and that they also limit rights.
However, Linkola's misanthropic deep ecology appears to be marginal within the thought of Finnish animal activists. It appears the majority lean on a Singerian view of equality and spreading rights outside the sphere of humans. Even though these most common modern arguments for animal and nature preservation differ from the Nazi views, the conclusions remain so similar that the whole Nazi Germany question is awkward to animal activists today. The Nazis' idea of nature is undoubtedly painful for those who regard vegetarianism and acknowledging animal rights as a sign of their own moral superiority. This thought is precisely the same the Nazis had. However, most people will probably understand that the evilness of the Nazi ideology does not mean that all their thoughts that coincide with those of the Nazis' are evil as such. And not all of the ideas they had were, in the first instance, bad despite awkward reasoning, but they should be considered as a part of larger European philosophical history and its development.
[http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494]
Why Don't Animal Rights Advocates Condemn the Hitler/Singer Culture of Death?
Why don't animal rights advocates Go Vagan and Anonymous condemn Singer for advocating killing born human children, same-sex marriage and animal-human sex?
Why don't Go Vagan and Anonymous admit that Hitler was the first modern animal rights national leader?
Anonymous called killing of animals "murder." Does Anonymous think gas chambers should be set up to punish the million of human "murders" of animals?
How many animal rights advocates condemn killing of unborn human babies and use of their body parts?
There appears to be a Nazi double standard. Killing of unborn human babies and using of their body parts is a right. Might it become a right to kill Jews or Christians who eat meat and who are against same-sex marriage as well as animal-human sex?
Fred
At 1:46 PM, Go Vegan said...
What a ridiculous post. No animal advocate would put people in harm's way. We feel the same way about people as we do animals: Both can feel pain, and both deserve compassion and respect. We also do not advocate breeding children for research. It's ridiculous that I even have to say that.
At 7:08 AM, Anonymous said...
What extremes you animal-hater extremist will go to try to prove that animal advocates are evil - likened to the Nazis. laughable, if not so dangerous to the millions of animals who are tortured, maimed, subjected to invasive unnecessary procedures in research labs, imprisoned and helpless condemned to misery and suffering until murdered by you self-annointed supreme beings - the human. BEWARE OF MAN!
Hitler and the Top Animal Rights Leader
Hitler and the top animal rights leader Peter Singer would use humans rather than animals for research and don't think there is "anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale."
Fred
If the 21st century becomes a [top animal rights leader Peter] Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2haQOxCWDksJ:www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D9987+Peter+Singer+same-sex+marriage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!
Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt
*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.
From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.
In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty.
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UV4Z7acH-mcJ:constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html+animal+rights+leader+hitler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
posted by Fred Martinez @ 10:28 AM
2 Comments:
At 1:46 PM, Go Vegan said...
What a ridiculous post. No animal advocate would put people in harm's way. We feel the same way about people as we do animals: Both can feel pain, and both deserve compassion and respect. We also do not advocate breeding children for research. It's ridiculous that I even have to say that.
At 7:08 AM, Anonymous said...
What extremes you animal-hater extremist will go to try to prove that animal advocates are evil - likened to the Nazis. laughable, if not so dangerous to the millions of animals who are tortured, maimed, subjected to invasive unnecessary procedures in research labs, imprisoned and helpless condemned to misery and suffering until murdered by you self-annointed supreme beings - the human. BEWARE OF MAN!
Hitler and the Top Animal Rights Leader
Hitler and the top animal rights leader Peter Singer would use humans rather than animals for research and don't think there is "anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale."
Fred
If the 21st century becomes a [top animal rights leader Peter] Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2haQOxCWDksJ:www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D9987+Peter+Singer+same-sex+marriage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!
Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt
*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.
From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.
In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty.
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UV4Z7acH-mcJ:constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html+animal+rights+leader+hitler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Hitler's Animal Rights Campaign
The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection
By: Martin G. Hulsey
On Usenet, it is generally considered bad form to bring up Nazi Germany in the context of any discussion. This perhaps results from the tendency of some participants to equate their opponents with Nazis in lieu of providing rational arguments.
In various fora, we have seen arguments suggesting that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. I have seen this suggested numerous times, and, understandably, it usually results in shrill responses from both vegetarians and animal "rights" activists. I have made attempts to investigate these claims, and I have been only marginally successful. It does seem that, at least, Hitler was not a devout vegetarian, if it is appropriate to classify him as such. This brings up the question of what properly justifies that classification.
There seems to be a lack of agreement even among self-styled vegetarians. Some call themselves pesco-vegetarians because they eat only fish. Others reject this notion. Curious and fascinating arguments have occurred in rec.food.veg regarding the duration of time within which a person must refrain from meat consumption before being a "true" vegetarian. One participant sarcastically noted that even omnivores are vegetarian "between meals." One participant in talk.politics.animals calls himself vegan, yet has admitted that he eats animal products from time to time. As an omnivore, I have little stake in what the consensus definition might be, but I submit that some degree of consistency should be achieved for the sake of argument. If Hitler is not properly classified as a vegetarian because he occasionally ate sausage or squab (assuming that was the case), what are we to make of the self-professed vegans who also backslide on occasions?
In my opinion, those who object to Hitler being classified as a vegetarian are taking the wrong approach. It is fallacious to suggest that one infamous person's dietary habits reflect on the character of others who share those habits. One wonders why most vegetarians don't offer that argument. I have noted on numerous occasions that vegetarians will offer the name of some famous vegetarian athlete, scholar, politician or musician as though this implies that dietary regimen is superior. Proponents of such arguments should realize that they are equally fallacious. Acceptance of such anecdotal evidence is a double-edged sword. That Paul McCartney, Leonardo DaVinci, etc. were or are vegetarian in no way implies that vegetarianism is a superior dietary regimen. To suggest otherwise is to make a fallacious appeal to authority.
Putting aside for a moment the veracity of calling Hitler a vegetarian, let us consider some claims that have been made to that effect. Sociologists Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax wrote a very interesting article (Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992) that describes the familiar-sounding rhetoric that leading Nazis used to support vegetarianism. For example:
"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!'"
This is a strange declaration for a man who some claim, without direct evidence, to have a preference for sausage.
If Hitler's date did have sausage, it might account for the counterclaim cited by Hitler's biographers (i.e., Rynn Berry) to the effect that He was not vegetarian. However, an account by Hitler's chef that he prepared sausage "for Hitler" may be mistaken and misleading if the sausage was, in fact, consumed by Hitler's female companions, as it obviously was on this one occasion.
Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:
"The Fuhrer is deeply religous, 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."
Irrespective of whether Hitler, Goebbels or other leading Nazis were, in fact, devout vegetarians, their self-serving rhetoric, claiming the moral high ground, is consistent with that which has appeared from time to time on rec.food.veg. In that newsgroup, we have seen omnivores characterized as "barbarians," "animal-killers," "murderers," and so forth. Clearly, many contemporary vegetarians regard themselves as ethically superior to omnivores.
Claims of ethical superiority are also a characteristic of the contemporary animal "rights" movement. One can hardly find publication from that movement that doesn't beg the question of "cruelty" with respect to practices of research, sport or cuisine. The epithet "cruelty-free" as applied to cosmetics has become popular in AR circles, despite its questionable veracity. Of course, what constitutes cruelty is a subjective matter, and the practices proclaimed as cruel by animal "rights" activists are more often that not legal, despite the existence of laws prohibiting cruelty to animals.
Implicit in this preoccupation with being "cruelty-free" is that non-adherents are cruel. As such, the claim of ethical superiority is one indisputable parallel between the Nazi animal protectionists and the modern AR movement. For example, consider the claims of moral superiority and the references to Eastern philosophy that are prevalent in the following translation of a Nazi article that was kindly provided to me by a friend:
The following is a translation of document #186 in Medizin im Nationalsozialismus by Walter Wuttke-Groneberg (Rottenberg: Shwaebische Verlagsgesellschaft) 1982.
The author of the book believes that this article demonstrated how the Nazi party would gain support by appealing to interest groups whose main concern were issues other than national politics. He also believes that the Nazi's regarded these measures as progressive and he juxtaposes this "reform" with the medical research atrocities in concentration camps.
Translator's remarks and literal German words in {}.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!
The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!
The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's {italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...
The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.
Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.
We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed! The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:
Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!
A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!
Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt
*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.
From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have "rights." Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.
In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty. The "antivivisection" law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that effect.
Some might seem content to totally dismiss the phenomenon of Nazi animal protection as a propaganda maneuver, but Nazi animal protection ran far deeper than the proclaimed abolition of vivisection. Consider this excerpt from Arluke and Sax (op. cit., p. 9):
"The preoccupation with animal protection in Nazi Germany was evident in other social institutions and continued almost until the end of World War II. In 1934, the new government hosted an international conference on animal protection in Berlin. Over the speaker's podium, surrounded by enormous swastikas, were the words "Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals for their value and service" (Meyer 1975). In1936 the German Society for Animal Psychology was founded, and in 1938 animal protection was accepted as a subject to be studied in German public schools and universities."
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.
Because the officially-proclaimed absolute ban on vivisection was never codified in the Reichstag, the claim that Germany's ban on vivisection was, in part, a propaganda maneuver has some merit. However, this inconsistency provides yet another parallel to the contemporary animal "rights" movement. The prominent AR organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, spent (and is still spending) a large sum of money in a fruitless legal attempt to obtain control over the well-known Silver Spring Monkeys. One could argue that this money could have been better spent in other, less newsworthy efforts at animal protection. There are other well-known publicity antics. PETA's penchant for pie-in-the-face publicity stunts has drawn criticism from other AR proponents. For example, Gary Francione was quoted as criticizing PETA for it's "Three Stooges" approach to animal protection. Thus, like animal protectionist elements of the Third Reich, it seems that some components of the contemporary AR movement are, in part, highly motivated by considerations of public relations and propaganda.
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.
It is not my purpose to equate contemporary animal "rights" activists with Nazis. Although there are clear parallels, there are distinctions as well.
However, whenever animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentler society, it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the only modern civilization to officially embrace a philosophy of animal rights did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle.
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:UV4Z7acH-mcJ:constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html+animal+rights+leader+hitler&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Singer Supports Sex with Corpses, Animals and Same-Sex Marriage
http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2haQOxCWDksJ:www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm%3Fid%3D9987+Peter+Singer+same-sex+marriage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
Don't expect [top animal rights leader]Peter Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child's play, already logically decided, and it's time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Mr. Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.
For example, when I asked him last month about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality (should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants?), he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' [but] it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."
If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts. Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs, and transplant them into their ill older children? Mr. Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, [but] they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is there anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
When we had lunch a month after our initial interview and I read back his answers to him, he said he would be "concerned about a society where the role of some women was to breed children for that purpose," but he stood by his statements. He also reaffirmed that it would be ethically OK to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be "raised as soon as possible after birth."
These proposals are biblically and historically monstrous, but Mr. Singer is a soft-spoken Princeton professor. Whittaker Chambers a half-century ago wrote, "Man without God is a beast, and never more beastly than when he is most intelligent about his beastliness," but part of Mr. Singer's effectiveness in teaching "Practical Ethics" to Princeton undergraduates is that he does not come across personally as beastly.
C.S. Lewis 61 years ago wrote That Hideous Strength, a novel with villainous materialists employed by N.I.C.E. (the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments): They were to be officed in a building that "would make quite a noticeable addition to the skyline of New York." But Mr. Singer sits in an unostentatious office at Princeton's Center for Human Values, which is housed in a small and homey grayish-green building with a front yard that slopes down the street. The Center even has a pastoral-sounding address: 5 Ivy Lane.
Top Animal Rights Leaders Support Ape-Human Sex
Animal rights leader Peter Singer, the founder of the Great Ape Project, and the leading animal right organization PETA who were behind the Spanish parliaments extending of rights to apes support sex between animals and humans.
Fred
Zoophilia
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers's Dearest Pet: On Bestiality,[29] Singer stated that "mutually satisfying activities" of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. Singer explains Dekker's belief that zoophilia should remain illegal if it involves what he sees as "cruelty", but otherwise is no cause for shock or horror. However, Singer does not claim to endorse the views of either Dekker or Soyka, merely to be explaining them. Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural,[30] it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, "we are great apes".[29] Some religious individuals and animal rights groups have condemned this view,[citation needed] while the animal rights organization PETA has expressed cautious support.[citation needed]
[http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:aq17fVGZS9AJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer+Peter+Singer+human+animal+sex&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Gay Rights then Same-Sex Marriage then Ape Rights then Ape-Human Marriage
First came gay rights then same-sex marriage then ape rights then comes ape-human marriage.
Fred
Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes
Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:27pm EDT Mag 2007 By Martin Roberts
MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.
Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.
"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.
Spain may be better known abroad for bull-fighting than animal rights but the new measures are the latest move turning once-conservative Spain into a liberal trailblazer.
Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.
The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.
"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.
Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code.
Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 percent of establishments to comply with the new law.
Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that "non-human hominids" like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.
(Reporting by Martin Roberts; Editing by Richard Williams)
[http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625?sp=true]
I'm Taking a Vacation from Blogging
I'm taking a vacation from blogging.
I'm excited and full of hope about the nationwide EWTN radio network. Please pray for EWTN because it is the main hope, I see, for turning the USA back to light from the Godless darkness. As a great writer said:
"Life without God is torment."
May God bless you with Hope,
Fred
PS-Below is a book I'm working on.
INTRODUCTION
This essays will touch the two levels of knowing: personal and objective.
Chapter one will be personal. The beginning of chapters two through nine will give episodes in the boys life.
The rest of each chapter will deal with exploration of these episodes. Exploration vehicles will be history, philosophy, literature and science. We will attempt a voyage to discover the meaning of love and life.
Chapter 1
THE BOY
The boy watched the clock. It ticked to the moment he waited for all day. The moment he would play baseball.
School meant only two things to the boy: recess and after school.
He remembered kicking the ball. It hit his female teacher in the head. Next thing he knew he was in class with the teacher walking up to his desk. She wrote a big red F on the top of the his paper. He put a line though the front of the F, which made it look like a A. She turned red in the face. After that the boy got only bad grades.
Figuring if he was dumb a least he would have fun. He daydreamed of making a fantastic catches like Willie Mays. He felt in his blood the bravado of Juan Marichal whose pitching delivery started with his foot kicking above his head. He wanted to be like Willie Mc Covey who kept playing despite terrible knee injuries. Willie Mc would run around the bases even though he could hardly walk.
The ballplayers loved what they did. He wanted to be like them using every bit of talent to
achieve heroics. After school, the boy was happy playing baseball and daydreaming. This was his last year of elementary school.
After a long walk he saw the sign: Fisher Middle School. He didn’t notice the sign. His mind was occupied. He had just walk through the middle of the gangs.
The whites were on one side of the street and on the other side were the Chicanos. For the first time he saw what looked like real race hatred. Inside the school everything was cliqueish. Few of the kids from elementary school went to Fischer. His baseball playing afternoons were over.
The boy became a paperboy and threw his energy into the paper route. He hated school. His only ambition was to get out.
His younger brother and he cut school for a few weeks. They called each others school with “parental excuses” for the other. The boy in his deepest voice said ” Matt Martinez is sick. His not going to make it to school this week.”
One day after feasting on lunch from paper route money, they were caught and forced back.
The next year there were still to gangs, but now they were Chicano and Black. The neighborhood was changing and so was the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. The neighboring highschool rioted so all the Blacks were let out of Fischer. The world was turning ugly.”
Then Robert Kennedy ran for president. The boy thought “He is such a good man. We hope he’ll make everything right.”
We saw Bobby at Our Lady of Guadalupe church. A lady pinched to see if he was real. He blushed and smiled. He really touched the little people and we touched him back.
The Martinez family stayed awake until Robert won the California primary. The happy boy went to sleep. He woke up to his mother's crying. Bobby was killed. He cried and then dilivered his paper route.
The rest of this essays deal with episodes in the boy's later life. These episodes lead him on a search. The results of that search will make up the chapters of this work.
Chapter 2 Love
The boy and his mother loved the hope Robert Kennedy gave. Both cried. The boy searched for someone or something to love and hope in.
The vast majority of Latinos belong to the Christian culture, which is based on love. The Greek language of the New Testament has three different words for love: agape, philia and eros.
Eros is the love of a person for another person. Its highest form is the attraction of a man for a woman. The symbol of eros is a man and a woman facing each other.
Philia is the love of a group of persons for each other. The city of brotherly love in the East Coast is named after this love. Its highest form is the unity of family members. The symbol of philia is persons side by side.
While eros and philia were widely used before Christ's time, agape was relatively unknown. Agape is love of God man. Its highest form is the God-man giving His life for enemy and friend. The symbol of agape is the cruxifix. Agapes fulfillment is the resurrection.
D H Lawrence touched on eros and philia when he said, “There are, the young women say, no real men to love. And there are, the young men say, no real girls to fall-in love with."1
According to Lawrence, the women’s love tends toward Eros. Her love is direct, face to face. Men’s love tends toward philia. His love falls through something to meet the woman. His love is hand holding hand, side by side.
Lawrence wrote," I believe there has never been an age of greater mistrust between persons than in ours today." 2 In other words, eros was mistrusted and a superficial philia was trusted. This was written when the feminist and socialist state was being established in England.
The feminist denied eros and the state upsurged the philia of the family. The state in Western secular regimes has been at war with the family since this time.
The feminist and the Puritan for different reasons taught their daughters not to love, but to mistrust their personal eros and their father’s philia.
G K Chesterton defended love and children against the sterile Puritan/feminist monster and it’s power mad Frankenstein father- the monopolistic capitalist/socialist state. He was a troubadour who fought for love of a woman and the right of a men to sing and drink beer. His love poetry to his wife are masterpieces and his beer songs are still fun.
1 (Edited By) Cavitch, David, Life Studies-A Thematic Reader. New York: St. Martins Pess, !983 and Lawrence, D H Counterfeit, p.385.
2 Ibid., p. 385.
Ernest Van Den Haag said the medieval troubadour “conceived love a longing, a tension between desire and fulfillment.” 3 In this way he showed the similarity between loveless anxiety and loving faith suspense.
Anxiety is a suspense. It is a suspense with fear about the outcome of relationships. In a way anxiety is a good sign. If one has it, it show they have not gone mad like Marx’s and Nietzsche’s self-actualized supermen Hitler and Stalin who believed they were beyond relationship. If anxiety does not find a relationship with God or another beloved it finally falls into distrust and despair.
Faith is also a suspense, but a suspense with excitement about the outcome of it’s relationship with God the beloved or another beloved. It leads to trust and hope.
But Van Den Haag got it wrong when he said, " the religious too perpetuate longing by placing the beloved altogether out of physical reach." He didn’t understand agape.
Agape is the God-man giving his life and everything human thing he had in total self-giving to friend and enemy. The Catholic faith teaches that Jesus, God and man, gives hypocrite and saint his body, soul and divinity when they receive Holy Communion. Christ gives us his blood body, soul and divinity for the same reason that a husband gives a blood transfusion to a bleeding wife or a friend gives a skin graft to a burned friend. He loves and wants to save our life. Our friends may save our life for a few more decades, but with Jesus we are saved to live forever.
This is not superstition, but biblical and was taught by a disciple of St. John the Apostle as well as by all the early church fathers:
"I am the bread of life. {49} Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. {50} But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. {51} I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." {52} Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" {53} Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. {54} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. {55} For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. {56} Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. {57} Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. {58} This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." [JOHN 6:48-58]
"St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and successor of St. Peter as bishop of Antioch, wrote: 'They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again' (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6 [A.D. 107])."
[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:kG3RaCtMDm0J:www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/nutsandbolts.html+whoever+eats+my+my+flesh&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8]
The Eucharist and all sacraments tells us that Christ isn’t "out of physical reach." Each sacraments contains something material and something spiritual.
3 Life Studies, Van Den Haag, Ernest, Love or Marriage?, p. 392.
[to be continued maybe]
The Cheapest Cell Phone Service
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:yQ3XrP3vLBsJ:marshallbrain.blogspot.com/2005/08/cheapest-cell-phone-service.html+cheapest+cell+phone+service&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8
The cheapest cell phone service
Let's say that you are looking to find the least expensive cell phone service in America. For example, say you want to have a cell phone strictly for "emergency purposes", so you aren't going to use it much if at all on a month to month basis. Or let's say that you want to have a phone that you do not plan to use very much -- say 20 or 30 minutes a month.
I've looked around, and as best I can tell I think that Virgin Mobile is the cheapest way to go. Virgin has a pay-as-you-go cell phone service. Here's how it works:
You have to buy a phone from Virgin. The cheapest one you can get right now is a Nokia phone available at Wal-Mart (or the Virgin site) for $39.
You have to buy a "top-up card" to put minutes on the phone (or you can use a credit card through the web site). The cheapest top-up card is $20, and you must top-up every 90 days even if you don't use the phone.
If you use the phone, you pay 25 cents per minute for the first 10 minutes every day, and then 10 cents per minute after that. There are no long-distance or roaming fees with Virgin.
For a zero-usage phone, you will be paying $20 every 90 days to keep your number active. If you use the phone for 20 minutes a month at the rate of a minute or two every other day, you'll pay 25 cents a minute, so you will actually use the $20 that you put on the phone. In other words, whether you use the phone for 0 minutes per month or 20 minutes per month, it costs the same.
If you assume that the phone lasts 24 months, and it costs $39, you are paying $1.63 per month for the phone. $20 divided by 3 months works out to $6.67 per month. So that means that it costs $8.30 per month for cell phone coverage using Virgin.
My question is this: Does anyone know of a less expensive way to get low-usage cell phone service in the United States?
# PermaLink -
Comments:
I believe any cell phone can dial 911, even without an active service plan. If that is indeed true, all you need for an emergency plan is a phone - no service plan required.
# posted by COD : 2:50 PM
In Canada I know all deactivated cells are still able to call 911.
Marshall, it is funny because I came up with the same conslusion with Virgin up here. It is definitely cheaper if you are a low usage customer.
However my provider has me locked in indefinitely because of discontinued plan that I refuse to drop because it is pretty sweet.
# posted by Jon : 3:03 PM
Marshall, I run the website MobileTracker.net so I get these types of questions all the time (it's a cell phone news/review site).
I set my mom up with 7Eleven's SpeakOut service. It's a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) just like Virgin Mobile USA. The difference is that minutes on SpeakOut last for one year, so you don't have to re-up every three months if you didn't use it.
Minutes are a flat $.20/minute. My mom doesn't make any long calls, so the Virgin plan isn't ideal. For her use cycle it is very very cheap. I think she's only had to buy airtime.
After rebate I think the phone cost about the same as Virgin's (and it also came with something like $10 in airtime).
# posted by Jon Gales : 3:44 PM
Marshall,
I use T Mobile To Go (prepaid) and my cost is similar to what you quoted. I also think the awareness of hours caused by having to recharge the phone curbs excessive usage.
They also let you keep your minutes for a year.
# posted by K Wendelken : 7:07 PM
My uses www.tracfone.com and says it is the cheapest she found. The math is all to confusing for me :)
# posted by Anonymous : 9:26 PM
I have a feeling when you say "emergency" you mean "calling the wife" rather than "calling 911". There's "911 phones" that dial only 911 like this. For "calling the wife" 20 minutes a month, virgin sounds cheapest.
# posted by Anonymous : 6:08 AM
I know another way. It is extremely cheap.
When you want to make a call, use a fixed line phone. Or beter, use a pay phone (yep, they exists. Really, they do. It's no joke.). Or even better: borrow a phone of one of your co-worker.
If you don't have a co-worker, then why don't you wait until you get home? Since when does the world depend on you, making a call within 3 minutes?
Really love your work, marshall! Keep it up! We need more people like you! You know, the people that tell the truth!
Technology is a thrill, you know. I really live for it!
# posted by Anonymous : 5:18 AM
Marshall,
Check out STI Mobile at cheapphonecards.com. $0.12 per minute fixed with no expiration and runs on the Sprint PCS network, same as virgin mobile. I recently switched from Virgin mobile and am very satisfied. There's a lot of discussion over at fatwallet.com if you're curious.
Really enjoying your blogs -- I was in your CSC102 class (Think Pascal on theold macs) back in the day at NCSU. Glad to see that things have gone well for you.
- Charles
[http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:yQ3XrP3vLBsJ:marshallbrain.blogspot.com/2005/08/cheapest-cell-phone-service.html+cheapest+cell+phone+service&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&ie=UTF-8]
Have Obama's Possible Communist Ties been Investigated?
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=126368
Obama's communist ties investigated
By Chad Groening
OneNewsNow
5/30/2008
An investigative journalist and a national defense analyst are accusing Barack Obama of once having ties with members of the Communist Party USA.
Cliff Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, has teamed up with Herbert Romerstein, a former investigator with the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities. Both have compiled evidence of Obama's past ties with Communist Party figures.
Kincaid says while a teenager in Hawaii, Obama was mentored by a Communist Party USA member known as Frank Marshall Davis. "[H]e was a Stalinist agent. And this is a fellow who clearly had a major influence over a young Barack Obama," he points out.
Davis most likely filled Obama with anti-American thoughts and ideas, Kincaid contends.
Kincaid says their evidence then documents how Obama went off to college where he became friends with various Marxist professors and attended socialist conferences. After college, Obama returned to Chicago and began his political career. "And lo and behold, he lands right in the middle of another communist network," he continues.
According to Kincaid, this new association involved the former members of the Communist Students for a Democratic Society, and the Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
"[These people] ... launched Barack Obama's political career in their own home," he details. Kincaid hopes the media will ask Obama to explain his past associations with these individuals.
New Poll Finds Majority of Californians Support Traditional Marriage
New Poll Finds Majority of Californians Support Traditional Marriage
SACRAMENTO, June 2 /Christian Newswire/ -- Capitol Resource Institute announced today the results of a survey that indicates that more than 56% of Californians oppose homosexual marriage.
As part of a nationwide survey in the battleground states regarding the presidential election the following question was asked: Do you agree that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal and binding in America? California answers this question "yes" 56.20%, and "no" 43.80%.
"We are not surprised by these results," states Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute Executive Director. "The people of California understand the judges overstepped their judicial boundaries. California has granted the most sweeping 'equality' laws in the nation. But the people of California have drawn the line at hijacking the term 'marriage' to describe these unions."
A Field Poll released last week reported that 51% of Californians support homosexual marriage. "This accurate new poll directly asks respondents' opinion of the definition of traditional marriage. Contrary to the vague Field Poll, this polling accurately reflects the true sentiment of the electorate," stated England.
The survey was completed by ccAdvertising of Herndon, Virginia in one 24-hour period ending at 7:00 p.m on May 30, 2008, with 528 California respondents (out of 7,613 respondents to the Traditional Marriage Question in the multi-state survey), and was statistically balanced by population density within each battleground state surveyed. The national survey results will be released on Wednesday.
Artificial intelligence call (AIC) or automated surveys like this one have proven to be more accurate than those using a live caller as noted in a Daily Kos post last week. "The reality is that Robo-pollsters like Survey USA and Rasmussen have had the best track record the past few election cycles." (Daily Kos May 28, 2008.)
Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Karen England, Executive Director, Capitol Resource Institute, 916-212-5607
Capitol Resource Institute
Church Resignation a Gauge of Obama's Integrity
Church Resignation a Gauge of Obama's Integrity
WASHINGTON, May 31 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today Senator Barack Obama is ending his 20-year membership at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Associated Press is reporting that Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Obama is scheduled to explain his decision tonight in South Dakota.
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Washington DC based Christian Defense Coalition comments, "It is painfully clear that Senator Obama has publicly discarded decades long relationships because his church has become a hindrance to his political aspirations.
"Only one of the two following options may be true; for the past twenty years Senator Obama was a member of a church fellowship that was the foundation of his spiritual and moral reasoning -- or -- he sat in the pew of Trinity United Church simply for the political gain such relationships could bring.
"If Trinity United Church was simply a club to improve Obama's standing in the community, then he is consistent in discarding his membership today, when such gain is gone.
"But if his church membership was truly spiritual -- then this action shows a fundamental lack of integrity. Obama's resignation of membership in Trinity United Church demonstrates that he will trade even on his faith for political advantage.
"As voters, the American people must ask Obama, as president, what closely held value will he trade away next time."
Christian Newswire
To: National Desk
Contact: Christian Defense Coalition, 540-538-4741
