When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They
are all mammals. They all feel pain. There is no rational basis for
saying that a human being has special rights ... 6 million people died
in concentration camps, but 6 billion chickens will die this year in
Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
[Environmental groups] are missing the boat because picking up the
garbage is not the issue, having sewage treatment plants is not the
issue those are really details of the bigger issue. It's like trying
to talk about a pimple when you really have [overpopulation] cancer.
We are all fellow travelers on Spaceship Earth. However, we have
abused our planet beyond its ability to sustain us. People are a cancer
upon this world, because we needlessly destroy nature and its works
wherever we congregate.
The worst of our transgressions involves eating and otherwise
mistreating animals, which is revolting in the extreme. We should treat
our fellow beings with respect and love not eat them!
Such atrocious treatment of our fellow beings never took place when
the ancient Pagan religions were observed. Animal and planet abuse only
began with the advent of Christianity.
How can you anti-choice people call yourselves "pro-life"
when you eat meat and wear leather shoes? You're being hypocritical!
A truly 'enlightened' society must, by definition, care for and feed
its most helpless or oppressed members. However, national pride
notwithstanding, the United States is anything but an enlightened
Our nation is a strange wonderland of inverted social values where
caring has gone awry, and compassion is extended only to those persons
and species that are considered "trendy" or 'Politically
Summary of the Gaia
BE A HERO, SAVE A WHALE
SAVE A BABY, GO TO JAIL
Operation Rescue T-shirt.
The "mainstream" animal rights movement and the
"mainstream" environmentalist movement share similar
philosophies. Their outlooks, although opposed by many, generally
attempt to balance the rights of mankind and the rest of nature, and
recognize that it is in man's own best interests to preserve and nurture
However, the motivations and logic of the extreme animal
rights and environmentalist movements are different in nature.
The "extreme" wings of both movements generally share the
belief that the Earth is our "mother" in the literal sense,
because it is a colossal living organism ("Gaia") that
is progressing towards its own divinity ("theagenesis").
Although the 'Gaia' hypothesis has, in one form or another, existed
almost since the beginning of recorded history, it has enjoyed a
resurgence as an important foundation of the "New Age"
movement. 'Gaia' was re-postulated in 1973 by 'evolutionary biologist'
Lynn Margulis, professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amhurst.
The word is Greek for Mother Earth, or "The Deep-Breasted
On Becoming 'Little Gods.'
Another primary tenet of "New Age" thinking holds that it
is natural that individual human beings can themselves become
gods on earth, because (or, perhaps, in spite of) their ability to
If the earth can become a 'god,' and if human beings can become
'gods,' it is also logical (in a "New Age" manner) to assume
that the intermediate link between humans and the living earth i.e.,
animal and plant life must also share in this "potential
Therefore, any imposition of man's will on either animals or earth is
considered by the radical animal rights and environmentalist groups to
be unacceptable meddling and an obstruction of other entity's personal
"vision quests," or progressions towards divinity.
As Peter Singer says in his 1975 book Animal Liberation,
"It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic
that man is the darling of the whole universe, or that other animals
were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority
over them, and divine permission to kill them."
The Anti-Christian Core.
The radical animal rights and environmentalist movements believe that
literally every being on earth is itself a type of divinity or
"potential divinity." Since all objects we produce are
extracted from natural resources, some even believe that such objects
interfere with the earth's quest for its own godhood.
In other words, everyone and everything is a god, potential god, or
part of a god or potential god.
This omnitheistic paganism is naturally antithetical to any
monotheistic concept, and especially to the Christian religion, which
teaches that the One God created everything, and reserves divinity to
So it is not surprising that there are absolutely no real Christians
among the ranks of the radical animal rights and environmentalist
groups. Such radicals are atheistic, anti-theistic, or paganistic in
their outlook. This worldview is reflected in their writings, and in
media coverage of their activities.
For example, Ted Turner, the Cable News Network anti-life
propagandist who commonly refers to pro-lifers as "bozos,"
said that "The Christian faith the Judeo-Christian tradition says
that God gave dominion over the planet to human beings; as for animals,
they don't count for anything. That's another reason I didn't want to go
there [Heaven]: No trees, no animals, just these fundamentalist
By the way, 1990 'Humanist of the Year' Turner is the person who
brought us the propagandistic "Captain Planet" cartoon show.
This thinly-disguised political pitch features six children, all of whom
hail from idyllic countries all except the American kid, Wheeler, who is
shown fighting for his life against muggers in a filthy New York City
slum. By vivid contrast, Kinka is a Soviet child from a beautiful
cottage in the midst of a flower-filled field that invariably has
thousands of butterflies in it.
Yeah, right (see the descriptions of several incredible Soviet
ecological disasters later in this chapter it's a miracle that any
butterflies survive in the former Soviet Union).
When the kids get into trouble they can't handle by themselves (which
is often), they are backed up by the magic powers of the Earth Goddess
Gaia the "New Age" patron saint whose voice is supplied by
virulent pro-abort activist Whoopi Goldberg.
Turner, of course, claimed that he used only "totally
impartial" advisors for his show. These paragons of fairness
included Carl Sagan, who brought us the bogus "nuclear winter"
theory, and Peter Dykstra, the head of Greenpeace.
What of the Year?
Time Magazine's bizarre 1988 "Planet of the Year"
issue lay bare the strange pro-nature and anti-Christian philosophy of
the animal-rights and environmentalist movement;
Humanity's current predatory relationship with nature reflects a
man-centered worldview that has evolved over the ages ... In many
pagan societies, the earth was seen as a mother, a fertile giver of
life. Mortals were subordinate to nature. The Judeo-Christian
tradition introduced a radically different concept. The idea of
dominion (engendered in the book of Genesis) could be interpreted as
an invitation to use nature as a convenience. Thus, the spread of
Christianity, which is generally considered to have paved the way for
the development of technology, may at the same time have carried the
seeds of the wanton exploitation of nature that often accompanied
The magazine is predictably crammed with lurid color photographs of
oil slicks, dead and rotting animals, toxic poisons leaching into the
soil, smog, Everests of trash, and starving children (but nothing about
aborted preborn children, naturally)!
The moral of the story, of course, is that society must turn away
from outmoded Christianity and eventually towards a one-world
government, enforced birth control, and abortion.
Pro-Animal and Anti-Jew.
It is fashionable for animal rights activists and environmentalists
to beat up on Christians, but their latent anti-Semitism must be
expressed in more careful and discreet terms.
Sylvia Cohen, an observer of extremist cults and political movements,
noted in the June/July issue of Midstream Magazine that
There is a distinct and explicit anti-Jewish tone: These Animal
Rights activists apply the imagery drawn from the Holocaust to
describe conventional farming, fishing and the killing of animals for
food; they use the same imagery in harassing Jewish biomedical
researchers and they direct recurrent attacks on kosher slaughter ...
There is a disturbing intolerance in the Animal Rights movement
towards those who disagree with its philosophy, and an unmistakable
tinge of antipathy towards Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Its
criticism of Christianity usually centers on Paul, Augustine, and
Thomas Aquinas for their views on the relationship between man and
beast. There is a sharper edge of intolerance towards Jews.
And Racists (and Nationalists), Too.
Not only are radical animal rights and environmental activists openly
anti-Christian and covertly anti-Semitic, they hold deeply rooted racist
beliefs as well.
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, has said that famine ought to
be allowed to run its course in Ethiopia, and has also called for an end
to immigration from Mexico and Central America.
Taking his cue from Margaret Sanger, Adolf Eichmann, and other
eugenicists, Edward Abbey, author of the ecotage novel The Monkey
Wrench Gang, complained of the wilderness degradation caused by
"millions of hungry, ignorant, unskilled, and
culturally-morally-genetically impoverished people."
And Chris Manes, author of Green Rage, wrote a column for the Earth
First! Journal asserted that AIDS could assist in population
control, thus lessening the "ecological load" caused by human
beings on this planet.
The racism of the movement's leaders inevitably has a profound impact
upon the directions taken by these radical groups. It seems that
environmentally destructive actions undertaken for the benefit of rich,
upper-class Whites receive much less emphasis from these groups than
those taken to assist the underprivileged.
Civic leaders from San Francisco envisioned a badly-needed
development consisting of 12,000 moderate-income houses and apartments
on San Bruno Mountain five miles south of the city. This development
would have greatly relieved the shortage of housing for low-income
families in the Southern part of the county. But, when environmental
activists discovered that the area was a nesting place for the rare
Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (which has a life span of exactly one
week), they raised such a ruckus that the development was reduced in
size by more than 80 percent to only 2,200 units.
San Mateo County Black activist Cliff Boxley railed against this
"green bigotry," saying that "Conservationists are more
interested in saving the habitats of birds than in the construction of
On the international scene, DDT was found to thin the shells of the
eggs of several species of birds, so the insecticide was not only banned
in the United States, but companies manufacturing it were prohibited
from shipping it overseas. Until DDT was extensively used in Ceylon (Sri
Lanka), there were between two and three million people afflicted with
malaria. This disease was wiped out by DDT. After the ban, the incidence
of malaria once again exploded, and thousands died every year from the
disease. This disaster was simply ignored by the radical
environmental groups, who apparently covet bird's eggs above thousands
of human lives.
Hopelessness and Nihilism.
Out of Place and Out of Time.
When people begin to see themselves as morally equal to or lower than
animals, a certain inevitable depressive world outlook must result.
After all, if we are not the supreme creation of God, then we are a
cancer. If we do not occupy a privileged place on this earth, we occupy
the lowest rung of existence because we cause more damage than any other
species. If we desire to escape responsibility in sexual and other
matters, we may assuage our consciences by accepting culpability for
'destroying' our planet a psychological ploy called
"substitution" that allows us to take no concrete action other
than being politically correct in our speech.
The attitude of "man as disease" is reflected in many
statements made by animal rights activists such as Ingrid Newkirk, who
once said that "We [humans] have grown like a cancer. We're the
biggest blight on the face of the earth." Although not an
activist by any means, even Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
once remarked that "I see no reason for attributing to man a
significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a
grain of sand."
Some environmentalists even wish for death not only for themselves,
but for the entire human race. For them, the world is an unending circus
of horrors, to be endured and survived until the blessed release that is
afforded by the end of their lives.
Bill McKibben writes in The End of Nature that
We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or
free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic
value, more value to me than another human body, or a billion of them.
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important
as a wild and healthy planet ... Somewhere along the line at about a
billion years ago, maybe half that we quit the contract and became a
cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth ...
Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some
of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
Perhaps the most extreme statement of this nihilistic philosophy was
made by what has to be the world's ultimate anti-life group The
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT, pronounced
"vehement" for short.
Anti-people crusader Les U. Knight, Portland, Oregon substitute
teacher and founder of VHEMT, said in his newsletter These Exit Times,
The hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of
plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo
sapiens us ... When every human makes the moral choice to live long
and die out, Earth will be allowed to return to its former glory. Each
time another one of us decides not to add another one of us to the
burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another
ray of hope shines through the gloom ... No matter what you're doing
to improve life on planet Earth, I think you'll find that phasing out
the human race will increase your chance of success.
Knight seems not to notice that people will have a hard time
'improving life on planet Earth' if there are no people left to do the
Dr. Frederick Goodwin of the United States Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and
Mental Health Administration struck at the root of such a hopeless Weltanschauung
(world outlook) when he said that "At its core, the animal-rights
thesis is a degradation of what it means to be human. As a psychiatrist,
I see in that a kind of giving up on the human endeavor, a sense of
hopelessness and despair."
One of the most interesting and concrete results of this hopeless
worldview is the ridiculous vision for the future of mankind that many
environmentalists hold. These visions are translated into wildly
inaccurate predictions that even the most disreputable psychic would
It is also important to note that these predictions (some of which
are shown in Figure 91-1) actually represent the type of society and
world that the radical environmentalists and animal rights activists
hope will come into existence through their efforts.
FRIGHTENING VISIONS: PREDICTIONS BY ANIMAL-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AND
The central fact is that the earth's climate seems to be cooling
down. Meteorologists are almost unanimous in the view that the trend
will reduce agricultural productivity.
Newsweek Magazine, April 28, 1975.
Quoted in Brent Bozell, "Environmental Inaccuracy: Who Cares?"
Conservative Chronicle, June 17, 1992, page 18.
The atmosphere may be reaching the limit of its capacity to absorb
emitted carbon dioxide without falling into a disastrous greenhouse
Newsweek Magazine, June 1, 1992. Quoted
in Bozell, op.cit.
Jay Forrester predicted in his doomsday tract The Limits to Growth
that the world would run out of gold in 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by
1987, zinc in 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, natural gas, and lead
Paul Ehrlich predicts in his book The Population Bomb that 65
million Americans will die of hunger by 1985. He also said in 1968 that
"The battle to feed humanity is already lost ... we will not be
able to prevent large-scale famines in the next decade." By the
next decade, of course, weight reduction clinics were everywhere and
diet books consistently made best-seller lists. Never one to give up,
Ehrlich in 1980 bet economist Julian Simon a thousand dollars that the
prices of five strategic metals tungsten, copper, nickel, chrome, and
tin would rise. All five fell, and Ehrlich paid up.
As described by syndicated columnist George Will. "'Earth
Summit' Already Loses Luster With Environmental Pessimists." The
Oregonian, May 31, 1992, page E3.
Due to the increasing severity of the food shortage, the following
will be a typical menu by the year 1990;
Wasp Grubs Fried in the Comb Termites Bantu
Moths Sauteed in Butter
New Carrots with Wireworm Sauce
Fricasseed Chicken with Chrysalides
Cauliflower Garnished with Caterpillars
Slag Beetle Larvae on Toast Chocolate Chirpies
Ronald L. Taylor, author of Butterflies
in My Stomach. As described in David Wallechinsky and Amy and Irving
Wallace. The Book of Predictions. New York: William Morrow and
Company, 1980, 513 pages.
By 1995, worldwide compulsory birth control will be instituted. By
2000, the PLANNED PLANETHOOD (!) movement will triumph over all other
systems of thought. In the same year, the control of conception will be
removed from personal choice. Males will be sterilized at age 14 after
depositing a semen sample in the frozen gamete bank. Conception will
require approval of a state or federal committee, which will first
investigate the genetic health of the two proposed genetic parents and
will license conception only if the parents are of superior
"stock." By the year, artificial insemination will be widely
used to produce genetically superior offspring Margaret Sanger's dream
of a "race of thoroughbreds" will finally become a reality.
These are among the many predictions by Judith Wurtman, G. Harry
Stein, Robert Francoeur, John Catchings, Frederick Davies, Robert Truax
and Jerrold S. Maxmen, as described in Wallechinsky and Wallace, op.cit.
The Objectives of the
[We desire] an end to all commercial logging ... the elimination of
the automobile, coal-fired power plants, and manufacturing processes
using petrochemicals ... and, most important[ly], the reduction of the
human population to an ecologically sustainable level.
Christopher Manes, Green Rage: Radical
Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization.
The vast majority of animal rights activists certainly have their
hearts in the right places. They work quietly to better the lot of sick
and abandoned wild and domestic animals, and help limit unnecessary
damage to valuable species for the sake of biological diversity and
However, as always, the radical fringe of any movement gets all the
press. In the case of the animal rights and environmentalist movements,
five percent of the people agitate for extreme, unworkable, and even
These animal rights extremists demand that the eating of meat and the
wearing of natural furs be outlawed; that all pet ownership be banned;
that all zoos be dismantled; that no hunting or farming (even dairy
farming) be allowed; and, of course, that all animal experimentation
Earth First! charter member Christopher Manes goes even further. He
asserts that man must return to a nomadic hunter/gatherer existence and
that we must recognize the "civil rights" of "tree
people" and "rock people." In other words, human beings
'oppress' rocks when using them to construct roads or buildings!
It boggles the imagination to try to estimate how many people heap
the ultimate indignity on "sand people" daily by using them
for cat-box filler.
Manes' book (for which thousands of "tree people" made the
ultimate sacrifice) acknowledges that ecoterrorism has caused hundreds
of millions of dollars of damage and numerous murders and maimings.
Earth First!, by the way, is one of the sponsors of the ecophile's
version of Woodstock, the "Mississippi Redwood Summer," where
speakers equated trees with disenfranchised Blacks.
For animal rights extremists, there can be no exceptions to their
rules. The president of Friends of Animals, the appropriately-named
Priscilla Feral, says that "Animal experimentation is just plain
wrong. Human beings have no right to the knowledge gained from
experimentation on animals, even if it is done painlessly."
This attitude is remarkably similar to that of the scientists who
believe that medical knowledge gained by the Nazis during their hideous
experiments on human beings should be off-limits to modern researchers,
Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),
states flatly that pet ownership is "... an absolutely abysmal
situation brought about by human manipulation."
Even the very mainstream Humane Society's literature states
flatly that "There is no rational basis for maintaining a moral
distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals."
Such attitudes, if codified, will inevitably lead to expensive,
useless and ludicrous results. As always, if we want to see the future
of our society, we must look to Sweden, where the Animal Bill of Rights
dictates that each pig must have a separate bed, which ideally must be
changed each night.
The Maltreatment of
In time, we'll look on those who work in animal laboratories with
the horror now reserved for the men and women who experimented on Jews
in Auschwitz ... That, too, the Nazis said, was 'for the greater
benefit of the master race.'
News release from People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.
Nothing agitates animal-rights groups more than the use of animals in
laboratories for purposes considered 'frivolous' by the activists. This
is natural because, in their minds, the sacrifice of one being for an
equal or lesser being is illogical and evil.
The posters and advertisements used by animal-rights people
invariably portray the 'hard cases,' or those animals that people can
most readily identify with: Puppies with big, sad eyes, cats, and apes.
However, of the 60 to 90 million animals 'used' (and killed) each year
for research and testing, about 90 percent are rodents, which are
certainly not photogenic and therefore rarely used in animal-rights
literature and publicity.
The director of the National Anti-Vivisection Society acknowledges
that the number of animals he quotes as being used by researchers each
year is much too high, a tactic identical to that used by
pro-abortionists who claimed that "5,000 to 10,000 women used to
die each year from illegal abortions." He also coaches his
followers to "Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim
that your only concern is the source of the animals."
Small mammals are 'used' to test the toxicity of colognes, cosmetics,
food colorings, and many other substances ultimately intended for human
consumption. Among other testing methods, these compounds may be
injected into the animal's esophagus or dripped into its eyes. Many of
these cosmetics have been proven toxic when the mammals experienced
convulsions or died. The practical effect of these tests was to prevent
toxic or even deadly items from reaching the human market.
Animal research has led to vaccines against polio, measles, mumps,
diphtheria, whooping cough, and rubella. It has led to cures for
smallpox effective diabetes treatment, and the discovery of at least
three lifesaving antibiotics.
Surgery on animals has led to the development of techniques for
implanting cardiac pacemakers, for reattaching severed limbs, and for
transplanting hearts, lungs, kidneys, and liver. Animal research also
produced the cure for acute lymphocytic leukemia in children.
The animals themselves also benefit from animal research. Such
research has led to immunizations against distemper, anthrax, rabies,
tetanus, and feline leukemia.
According to the 1988 National Academy of Sciences report on animal
research, "Animal experimentation has contributed to an increase in
average life expectancy of about 25 years since 1900," a claim
backed up by former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who estimates that
animal research has added twenty years to the average person's life in
the last two generations.
Despite PETA propaganda that claims otherwise, a 1988 American
Medical Association survey found that 97 percent of the country's
570,000 doctors support animal research.
One interesting group that supports animal rights in general but
opposes the radical animal-rights movement is iiFAR (incurably ill For
Animal Research), Post Office Box 1873, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455.
Maltreatment of Farm Animals.
Other cases of animal maltreatment are less justified in the eyes of
animal-rights activists and probably in the opinion of a large segment
of the public.
For example, since farm animals are not currently protected by
Federal legislation, virtually any mistreatment short of outright
intentional torture is tolerated.
From the age of three days, veal calves are commonly confined in
22-inch wide crates, and they are not allowed enough room to walk or to
even turn around. Their constant liquid-only diet inflicts permanent
diarrhea upon them. This and the fact that they never see the sun
guarantees the desirable white (anemic) meat of the so-called
But Why All the Fuss?
There is undoubtedly a tremendous amount of cruelty inflicted upon
animals in this country.
And why not?
If we, as a nation, have so callously displayed our disregard for the
welfare of our own species through abortion, forced
sterilization, infanticide, euthanasia, and genocide, why should we
place a higher priority on lesser species? We should instead strive for
consistency and become 'equal opportunity abusers,' with no particular
regard for any species.
The public is constantly exposed to a parade of horrific visions of
war, disease, and destruction on television while a large percentage of
our people have obtained an abortion or assisted in obtaining one. We
have become jaded by death. Why should we become excited about the
killing of animals, even if such killing is cruel and entirely
We are trying to pretend that the environment can be handled by
becoming again children of nature. You know children of nature today
play electronic guitars. Every time I hear an anti-technology ballad
sung on an electronic guitar with the latest amplifiers, I kind of
Professor Peter F. Drucker, who offered the
nation's first college course on the environment in 1947.
CPCs for Apes.
As with most other movements, the vast majority of animal-rights
groups and individuals employ legal, low-key means to protect various
species of animals that are in danger, either as individuals or as a
For example, Alan Sweatt's San Antonio farm "Primarily
Primates" houses about two hundred former pets and circus animals
that were retired rather than euthanized. This makes his facility
roughly the equivalent of a crisis pregnancy center.
Some of his apes had endured torment for years at the hands of circus
trainers or sadistic and neglectful private owners. Sweatt invests
considerable time in his attempts to "detraumatize" these
animals, with impressive results.
"Rescue Missions" for Animals.
There are many other parallels between the animal-rights movement and
the pro-life movement. However, some of the illegal tactics routinely
employed by animal-rights groups would never be tolerated if pro-life
activists used them.
For example, it is common for the Animal Rights Front (ARF) and other
groups to block hunters from entering Connecticut game preserves with
their cars and bodies. If the hunters do manage to gain entry, the
activists dog their heels all day and make enough noise to scare away
deer and other game.
This is essentially the animal-rights equivalent of the pro-life
"rescue mission." Yet no animal-rights activists have ever
been hit with an injunction or a multi-million dollar Federal
anti-racketeering lawsuit, and their activities are tolerated by police
and game wardens.
Endangering People to Save
Their tactics are clear. Work to increase the costs of research,
and stop its progress with red tape and lawsuits.
Nobel laureate Dr. David H. Hubel.
The most extreme "Meat is Murder" people, including such
organizations as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), routinely break into
and destroy research labs, vandalize veal farms and rustle cattle, and
spray graffiti everywhere with virtual impunity.
Why is this behavior winked at by authorities?
Because animal rights is a 'trendy' Neoliberal cause.
Attempted Murder By Nail Bomb.
The overt expression of the radical animal-rights viewpoint has
sometimes taken murderous directions.
Leon Hirsch is a businessman whose company manufactures surgical
instruments used in transplants. This company primarily tests these
instruments on approximately 1,000 abandoned dogs annually. Hirsch, who
has also received numerous death threats, found a remotely-controlled
nail bomb outside his home in 1988. Experts say that this bomb would
have killed him had it detonated. The perpetrator, Fran Trutt, pleaded
'no contest' to charges of attempted murder, possession of explosives,
and bomb manufacturing.
Trutt received a sentence of exactly one year in prison. Contrast
this to the sentences received by pro-lifers who endanger only property:
Four years in prison for Joan Andrews, who caused $215 damage to an
abortion suction machine in Florida, and 20 years for Curt Beseda, who
torched an Everett, Washington abortion mill. Nobody was hurt in these
latter two incidents. The reason that pro-lifers receive much more
severe sentences than animal rights activists who commit the same act is
that the pro-lifers represent a more credible threat to an institution
that the government is deeply committed to supporting: The
abortion/population control complex.
In a separate incident, a bomb being transported by two Earth First!
members exploded prematurely in California, and the San Francisco Chronicle
and Examiner immediately painted it as an FBI attempt on their
A typical Earth First! magazine reads more like Soldier of Fortune:
A single recent issue featured stories on activists sinking whaling
ships, smashing computers and chainsaws with sledgehammers, destroying
logging equipment, getting into fistfights and gun battles, getting
blown up by bombs, and even performing the equivalent of a kamikaze
mission by standing under falling trees.
It is interesting to examine the direct-action tactics used by animal
rights activists to accomplish their goals.
Alex Pacheco, a charter member of PETA, got a job with research
psychologist Edward Taub in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1981. Taub
studied monkeys under a National Institute for Health grant in order to
try to find ways to allow stroke victims to regain the use of paralyzed
When Taub took a vacation, Pacheco provided false information to
police that resulted in confiscation of all of the lab animals and the
charging of Taub with 119 counts of cruelty to animals. It took Taub
five years to clear himself of all charges in court, while the animal
rights people continued to phone and mail him death threats.
On October 26, 1986, members of the Animal Liberation Front, which is
listed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as one of the ten most
dangerous terrorist organizations in the country, broke into research
buildings at the University of Oregon at Eugene and destroyed
microscopes, an electrocardiogram machine, an incubator, a sterilizer,
and an X-ray machine, and stole 150 research animals. More than a dozen
projects were trashed, including neuroscientist Barbara Gordon-Lickey's
research into visual defects in newborns.
In 1988, animal-rights activists destroyed the epilepsy and
Alzheimer's research laboratory at the University of California at Los
Angeles. The leader of the responsible group received a sentence of 45
days in jail, with most of the time off for good behavior. None of the
other 'raiders' were punished or even charged with a crime.
Contrast this to the 2-1/2 years actually served by Joan
Andrews (mostly in solitary confinement) for damaging a suction machine
in a Florida abortion mill, and multi-year sentences doled out to
nonviolent, nondestructive pro-life rescuers on their third or fourth
misdemeanor trespass conviction.
On April 3, 1989, the ALF broke into four buildings at Tucson's
University of Arizona, smashed medical equipment, spray-painted graffiti
like "Nazi" and "Scum," and stole or released 1,231
animals. They then torched two of the research buildings, causing
$200,000 in damage. One of the 15 projects halted involved research on
creating an effective disinfectant for Cryptosporidium-contaminated
water that would save thousands of lives in developing countries. The
ALF 'commandos' unwittingly released 30 mice infected with the virus, an
incurable strain of diarrhea that is invariably fatal to AIDS
patients and malnourished children.
On July 4, 1989, members of the Animal Liberation Front broke into a
Texas Tech University laboratory and destroyed more than $70,000 worth
of medical equipment. They stole five cats being used by Dr. John Orem
in researching Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), which kills more
than 5,000 babies every year. The destruction wrought by the ALF halted
Orem's progress entirely. Nobody will ever know how many babies died as
a result of ALF's attack.
The ALF is particularly active in Great Britain, where its attacks
occur on a weekly basis. For example, during the Christmas 1988 season,
it firebombed and destroyed five department stores and fur sellers.
Bombs were defused at two other sites. These actions may very well
resulted in massive loss of human life. The ALF and the Animal Rights
Militia have also taken credit for acts of arson that destroyed a San
Jose meat company.
Other Acts of Terrorism.
The above acts are by no means the only anti-personnel actions that
have been carried out by radical animal rights activists. Other violent
attacks include the following.
In June of 1990, a British veterinarian was severely injured
when her car was bombed. An animal rights group claimed
responsibility, and a member of the group who called in to a local
radio talk show said that it was "unfortunate that she
survived." An Animal Liberation Front caller on another show said
of another researcher, "The sooner he is killed, the
Also in June of 1990, animal rights activists tried to kill a
Bristol University researcher with a car bomb, but instead blew up a
13-month old baby in his carriage nearby. The baby survived with
burns, shrapnel wounds, and a severed finger.
On May 2, 1980, a crew of U.S. Forest Service personnel were
using backpack-mounted sprayers to apply herbicide to an area of young
conifers in the Siskiyou National Forest. They were confronted with 80
angry environmental activists armed with knives and clubs, who
promised to "split your heads." The crew attempted to
escape, but was trapped by the mob. The head of the team shouted that
they would end the spraying, saying later that "If I hadn't done
it, someone would have surely been badly hurt or killed."
In May of 1982, ecoterrorists bombed four British Columbia
Hydro 500-kilovolt transformers, causing $6 million in damage. Police
received a letter from an environmental group that called itself
"Direct Action," and which condemned 'patriarchy' and read
"We must make this an insecure and uninhabitable place for
capitalists and their projects. This is the best contribution we can
make towards protecting the earth and struggling for a liberated
In May of 1981, radical environmentalists destroyed a $180,000
helicopter leased by Publisher's Paper Company for the purpose of
spraying brush control herbicides on a commercial Douglas Fir
plantation near Toledo, Oregon. A letter from the "People's
Brigade for a Healthy Genetic Future" claimed responsibility.
In January of 1981, ecoterrorists destroyed Montana Power
Company's timber-truss Franklin Bridge, the only vehicular access to
the Rattlesnake Wilderness and National Recreation Area.
Earth First! member Judi Bari, a pro-abort who has tried to
disrupt pro-life events in the past, was blown up when a nail bomb she
was transporting in her car detonated while she was driving it. She
claimed that she had no knowledge of the existence of the bomb in her
car, and blamed it on a (conveniently unnamed) "right-wing
fundamentalist with a history of violence."
The 'Ecotage' Phenomenon.
As described above, some extremist animal rights activists and
environmentalists attempt to murder human beings, an activity that is
rightly classified as 'terrorism.'
Other environmentalists engage in 'ecotage' or 'monkeywrenching,'
which is the destruction of equipment and supplies used by loggers and
other groups that present an immediate perceived threat to a specific
segment of the ecosphere.
These activities are not intended to harm human beings.
To make the difference more understandable to pro-lifers, clinic
bombing is the anti-abortion equivalent of 'ecotage.' Any attempt to
kill or mutilate abortionists would properly be classified as murder or
terrorism. Of course, all pro-life activities (even silent prayer) have
been labeled "terrorism" by pro-aborts, and this propensity
for exaggeration has muddied the waters considerably.
Origins of the Submovement. Many animal rights/environmental
extremists point to Edward Abbey's 1975 book The Monkey Wrench Gang
(a action-adventure novel about a band of "ecoteurs") as the
spiritual beginning of their movement. This is reflected in Earth
First!'s motto, "No compromise in defense of Mother Earth!"
Not only do some animal-rights activists destroy property and
endanger lives, they proudly revel in the resulting publicity and urge
others to violent action in their publications.
The Anarchist newsletter Business As Usual parrots the same
Marxist psychobabble that the extreme Neofeminists do: "Real
freedom in our lives cannot be achieved without the massive escalation
of attacks on the capitalist system of oppression." The
magazine proudly lists dozens of attacks on department stores,
supermarkets, and fast-food outlets that its writers judge to be
supporting cruelty to animals.
Edward Abbey (mentioned above) claims that "I'm not advocating
illegal activity, unless you're accompanied by your parents or at
And David Foreman, founder of Earth First!, says that "I would
not encourage anyone to monkeywrench; that is an entirely personal
decision. More importantly, I would not want to discourage anyone from
monkeywrenching. Those willing to commit ecotage are needed today as
Substitute the words "bomb abortion clinics" for "monkeywrench"
in the above quotes, and then imagine how the environmental/population
control people would react!
It is not only individual environmentalists who advocate and
encourage destruction of property. The 25,000 member group Environmental
Action sponsored an 'ecotage' contest, where participants wrote up their
ideas and submitted them. The group published the best ideas from the
contest in its 1971 Pocket Book Ecotage! George Foreman also
published a book entitled Ecodefense: A Field Guide to
Monkeywrenching, which contains chapters on road and tree spiking
and the destruction of bulldozers and aircraft.
What would the reaction of the media be if radical pro-lifers
published a Clinic Bombing Manual for Babysavers?
Is there really any doubt?
No Fur-Wearers, Please.
A popular target of animal-rights activists are fur-wearing women.
For example, Trans-World Unlimited sponsors "Fur-Free Friday,"
an annual New York City parade that has for years been led by talk-show
host Bob Barker. During this procession, participants routinely assault
and spit on women wearing fur coats. Furriers have had their windows
smashed and their property vandalized; in one instance, animal-rights
vandals slashed and destroyed $400,000 worth of furs.
This type of activity clearly violates the Neoliberal 'Prime
Directive' of consistency because, as Utne Reader author Richard
Ryan points out;
It's not hard to see that the attacks on fur-wearing females (as
opposed to leather-wearing men) play simultaneously on cheap populism
and cheaper sexism. You can scream at women in mink coats emerging
from ritzy department stores and be fairly certain they're not going
to physically retaliate ... It would be more interesting to watch
zoophiles gathered in front of a biker bar, hollering slogans at the
leather-sporting clientele as they swagger up to their Harleys.
But we're not likely to see that anytime soon, are we?
It is significant indeed that none of the 'mainstream' environmental
groups like the Sierra Club or the National Wildlife Federation have ever
condemned either specific acts of ecotage or the practice in
If we use the logic of pro-abortionists that any pro-lifers who do
not vigorously condemn clinic bombings in fact support them and are
therefore also contributing to "an atmosphere of intimidation and
harassment" we may also conclude that the mainline environmental
groups support eco-terrorism.
The Role of the Media.
Despite their terroristic tactics, the ALF and other organizations
are often lionized in the press. Contrast this to the American media's
treatment of people who take pains to destroy abortion mills when nobody
As additional evidence of bias, the media simply will not tolerate
any depiction of the results of the act of abortion itself. In nearly
one hundred documented cases from all over the country, pro-lifers have
attempted to purchase advertising that features graphic photographs of
aborted preborn babies and, in the vast majority of cases, they have
been turned down, because, as the media censors say, such material is
"in bad taste."
Curiously, the media seems to have no trouble at all in publishing
garish photographs of current war scenes, the effects of the atomic
bombs on people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or even of dead Jews stacked
like cordwood at Nazi concentration camps in the aftermath of World War
And the 'mainline' media also accepts for publication the most
graphic and revolting imaginable photos proffered by animal rights
A graphic ad in the April 16, 1989 issue of the New York
Times, paid for by the International Wildlife Coalition, featured
closeup photos of butchered elephants. The title of the ad was
"African Chainsaw Massacre." A nearly identical photo by the
African Wildlife Foundation in their Times (Sunday Edition) ad
of February 12, 1989, showed an extreme closeup photograph of an adult
elephant with the entire front half of its head hacked off. This ad
was entitled "Today, in America, Someone Will Slaughter An
Elephant For a Bracelet."
Another popular ad featured in many major newspapers showed a
monkey apparently being stretched and crushed to death by a crude
mechanical apparatus. This ad, entitled "Dear President Bush:
Animals, Too, Need a Kinder, Gentler World," was signed by, among
many others, Paul and Linda McCartney, Doris Day, Ryan O'Neal, Abigail
Van Buren ("Dear Abby"), John Denver, James Coburn, Kim
Basinger, Loretta Swit, Angie Dickinson, Ali MacGraw, Telly Savalas,
Whoopi Goldberg, and Elvira, many of whom regularly march for
"Citizens for Environmental Responsibility" displayed
a color photo of a dead, oil-caked seal in their April 24, 1989 Washington
Post "Boycott Exxon" ad.
Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another
Environmental activist Helen Caldicott.
The Basic "Logic."
It is curious indeed that pro-abortion groups hysterically denounce
pro-life clinic bombers for endangering human lives, but support with
their silence the destruction of research laboratories, massive
endangerment of human life, and the release of deadly diseases by
There is compelling evidence that some animal-rights activists truly
believe that the life of an animal is much more important than the life
of a human being. For example, some animal-rights extremists condemn the
"crime of vivisection" as immoral and unscientific, asserting
that they would prefer experimentation done for the sake of human beings
to be performed on human beings.
And only in the United States could there exist a group entitled
'Animal Rights Activists for Choice.'
The attitude of radical environmental activists towards abortion, and
the basic logic behind this view, can be summed up with a pair of very
simple (and simplistic) equations;
WHY MANY ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUPPORT
ABORTION: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EQUATION
PEOPLE = ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
MORE PEOPLE = BAD
ABORTION = LESS PEOPLE
ABORTION = GOOD
Animals Above Humans.
One of the many curious outgrowths of the extreme animal-rights
movement is a cadre of members who pale at the thought of inflicting any
discomfort upon animals, but shrug indifferently when confronted with
the specter of a late-term unborn baby writhing in agony as it is torn
limb from limb by the steel instruments of the abortionist.
Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, neatly
tied abortion and radical environmentalism together when she said that
"The abortion question is not just about women's rights, but about
life on the planet environmental catastrophe awaits the world if the
population continues to grow at its present rate."
The following environmental and animal-rights organizations have gone
on record as favoring repeal of the Mexico City Policy and restoration
of Federal funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities
(UNFPA), the chief architect of China's one-child population control
policy. This program includes mass forced sterilization and abortion, as
described in Chapter 50 of Volume II, "Forced Abortions."
PRO-ABORTION ENVIRONMENTAL AND ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Policy Institute *
Friends of the Earth (FOE) *
Global Tomorrow Coalition
Izaak Walton League
National Audobon Society *
National Parks and Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Council of America
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club *
The Oceanic Society
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
* Identified as an "Organization Working to Solve Population
Problems" on pages 246 and 247 of Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich's
1990 book entitled The Population Explosion.
These environmental groups claim that they only favor "family
planning" and "population control." However, their
leadership is fully aware of the fact that the Mexico City Policy and
the cutoff of funds to the UNFPA only affected those
"population control" programs that funded coerced abortions.
'Mystagoguery' in Action.
Of course, when the line between human and animal is blurred, the
potential for abuse by pro-abortionists escalates geometrically.
Advocates of behavior that was formerly thought to be immoral or
unethical use the mighty weapon of 'mystagoguery' to advance their
cause. This is the needless complication of a simple issue in order to
create a 'grey area' that may be exploited in the midst of the resulting
The animal rights movement has handily provided one more cover under
which pro-abortionists may more easily create and exploit this 'grey
area' for its own purposes.
One good example of a person who has recently used this tactic is 'bioethicist'
Mary Anne Warren, whose pet project is the harvesting of organs from
late-term aborted preborns and anencephalic newborn babies. She writes
If we are to make a reasoned judgment about the moral status of
fetuses, and of nonhuman animals, alien life forms, intelligent
machines and other problematic entities, we must develop a criterion
of moral rights that is species-neutral. That is, it will not do to
make 'genetic humanity,' or mere genetic affiliation to the human
species, either a necessary or a sufficient condition for the
possession of full moral rights.
[The criteria for personhood is] an entity that has the actual, not
merely potential capacity for consciousness, complex, sophisticated
perception, rationality, self-awareness and self-motivated
Note the jumble of false comparisons and open-ended qualifications
that make up the thick smoke screen behind which Warren attempts to
justify her ghoulish desires. She readily concedes that the preborn
"look disconcertingly like people," but states as a fact that
"they do not desire life, or anything else, any more than trees or
Might Warren be remembering her own preborn existence?
The Official Government
Position: Animals Are More Important Than People.
To the degree that other species have no voice in the political
process, they will be exploited and destroyed. We need to think in
wider terms how to build into our political system, into the fabric of
our society, a practical way of giving voice to other living beings.
Mary O'Brien, staff scientist for the
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (E-LAW).
The Heart of the Matter.
Sadly, the view that humans are less important than animals is also
the official (but largely unpublicized) position of our own government
at every level.
Divisions of major Federal government agencies have as their sole
purpose the protection of various animal species and their habitat
(i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers). These agencies can levy huge fines for killing or injuring
non-human species even those as yet unborn!
Meanwhile, abortionists rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every
year for killing preborn human babies.
Animal-rights activists strongly oppose the use of condemned animals
for research. Strangely, the logic of their opponents the animal
researchers is identical to that of the fetal organ harvesters: Since
the animal is slated for euthanasia, why not use it for the benefit of
The State's Example.
The state, by its legal actions, reveals that it values castoff cats
and dogs more than the unborn child. No state has yet banned fetal
experimentation, while eleven states now prohibit the selling of stray
animals after their impoundment for research. Ironically, the practical
effect of these regulations is that these strays are put to sleep much
Of course, it is common knowledge among pro-lifers that the
government values unborn animals much more than unborn human beings.
It is illegal to transport pregnant lobsters (no, this is not
a joke) anywhere on the East Coast for fear of damaging them or their
offspring. This means that the Federal government recognizes lobsters as
lobsters from conception.
Anyone destroying or tampering with eagle eggs is subject to a
$5,000 fine and one year's imprisonment. This means that the Federal
government recognizes eagles as eagles from conception.
Cattle used as breeding stock must be capitalized, which means that all
associated costs must be recorded. These costs begin at conception!
According to The General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986
(commonly referred to as the "Blue Book"), issued by the Joint
Committee on Taxation, "The preproductive period of [farm] animals
begins at the time of acquisition, breeding, or embryo
This means that the Federal government recognizes calves as
calves from implantation.
Laws across the United States are virtually uniform in addressing the
avoidance of pain to animals. Yet no law even attempts to ameliorate the
awful pain felt by the 15,000 third-trimester babies who are cut apart
and left to die in aluminum buckets every year in this country.
There are almost too many examples of our government's People Last!
policy to count, but some of the more ludicrous and hypocritical
instances are shown below.
In Rhode Island, "cruelty to animals" is a
misdemeanor punishable by up to 11 months in jail and a $500 fine. One
Providence woman was arrested and charged under this statute for
starving her dog to death. In the same state, Marcia Gray, a human
being, was starved to death, even though she had never requested such
'treatment.' She was merely "inconvenient," presumably just
as the dog was, and so was "put to sleep," just as the dog
was. But there is no fine or jail term in Rhode Island for starving a human
being to death.
A Los Angeles woman baked her boyfriend's parrot after an
argument with him and was subsequently sentenced to 30 days in a
County jail. She was also prohibited from owning a pet for three
years. Presumably, she was not severely beaten by police with name
tags removed, as were hundreds of pro-life activists during massive
rescues in the same city in 1989.
A panel of Florida judges said that a fertilized turtle egg was
"marine life" and that a turtle's life begins the moment the
egg is laid, in an opinion that included a fine of $108,800 levied
against James Bivens, who pleaded guilty to poaching turtle eggs from
John D. MacArthur State Park. Bivens was also sentenced to 60 days in
jail, all of which he served. Joan Andrews, who caused $215 damage
to an abortion suction machine, languished in a Florida jail for two
and a half years.
An Illinois man was fined $500 in 1984 for inadvertently
killing a female white-tailed deer. He said that he shot at extreme
range and mistook the doe for a buck. Unfortunately for him, the doe
was pregnant, so he was fined. This is typical of local and state
hunting laws. It also means that the government recognizes deer as
deer from conception.
The May 6, 1982 Washington Post reported that a Maryland
veterinarian was suspended from his practice and fined $3,000 "in
the starvation death of a dog." Yet every year in this
country more than 2,000 newborn human beings are allowed to die
of starvation and thirst because their parents deem that their lives
are not of sufficient quality. Bloomington's Baby Doe was merely the
most publicized of these thousands of deaths.
It is illegal to offer goldfish in games of chance in
Massachusetts, because the Supreme Judicial Court of that state ruled
that this practice tends to "dull humanitarian feelings and
corrupt morals." Remember that this is the same court that upheld
forced public funding for abortions.
An unidentified person shot an American bald eagle on December
2, 1981 in Maryland's Patuxent State Park, and the Izaak Walton League
of America, the National Wildlife Federation, and the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service immediately joined forces, offering a $4,500
reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the
perpetrator. Yet people in the same state screamed in outrage when
pro-lifers posted reward posters for information leading to the arrest
and conviction of abortionists.
Finally, an unidentified person attacked a 500-year old oak
tree near Magnolia Springs, Alabama, with a chain saw in October of
1990. Local government 'rescuers' responded to this "act of
terrorism" by putting up a tent labeled "+ ICU +"
(intensive care unit) over the base of the tree. This tent was
equipped with a furnace, air conditioner, and 24-hour armed guard with
There's "Inappropriate,' and Then ...
One vivid example of how completely our values have been inverted
took place recently in (where else)? The People's Republic of
Massachusetts, where Attorney General James Shannon allowed several
questions regarding animal rights to be put to the voters via a general
ballot. These ballot measures, which failed, would have extended animal
rights to the extent that they would have been nearly equal to human
rights. These measures would also have created absolute pandemonium in
Massachusett's farming and agricultural sectors.
However, the same Attorney General rejected as
"inappropriate" a nonbinding public policy question requested
by 26,000 voters that would have posed to the voters a multiple-choice
question regarding when human life begins.
It is very interesting that the good Attorney General was a past
president of the local Planned Parenthood chapter.
The conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is obvious. Our
government values preborn lobsters, eagles, cattle, and deer much more
than the preborn human being, which it considers nothing more than
This situation is so ridiculous that even some secular media
spokesmen have parodied the animal-rights people. Syndicated humor
columnist Dave Barry, in his March 13, 1989 weekly column, wrote that;
You're going to be sure that we made this up, but we didn't. It
seems that a Rockville, Maryland restaurant called "The House of
Chinese Gourmet" installed a lobster tank, which greatly upset
some customers who belong to a group called the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, whose members apparently have (1) a deep respect
for all living things, and (2) a tremendous amount of spare time. They
bought seven lobsters from the restaurant for $40, removed them from
the tank (according to the article, a PETA member "talked softly
and rubbed the lobsters to reassure them"), and then paid $200 to
fly the lobsters to Portland, Maine, where they (the lobsters) were
released in the ocean, where we are sure they will live happy,
productive lives until they are recaptured by lobstermen, who will
re-sell them to The House of Chinese Gourmet, which will re-sell them
to PETA, and thus will the great Cycle of Life continue until the
lobsters become so airsick that they deliberately hurl themselves into
Everyone (at least in California) has noticed the slogan "LOVE
ANIMALS, DON'T EAT THEM" stenciled on public sidewalks and on the
walls of packing houses and shops that sell fur coats. This philosophy
has led to books with the silliest themes imaginable, i.e., The
Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.
The general idea is that animals are all part of the 'eco-community,'
and are co-equal with human beings in every way except that they are
superior to humans in some ways. The idea of actually eating such
exquisite creatures is anathema. Trans-Species Unlimited even urges
"total abstention from animal products, including dairy and
There is a lot to be said for vegetarianism. The human
gastrointestinal system is not designed to efficiently process meat. The
human intestine is sized for digesting vegetables, and expends a
disproportionate amount of energy on heavy chunks of meat. Some sources
assert, very persuasively, that many or most of the country's
half-million annual cases of intestinal cancer are caused by the
prolonged additional stress of digesting meat.
There would also be vast advantages for everyone if the human race
occupied a lower rung in the food chain. The average person consumes
about 60 million calories of food energy in a 70-year lifespan. This is
equivalent to either 100 tons of grain eaten directly, or more than 500
tons of grain if converted to meat at a 10 percent caloric conversion
The implications for feeding the world are obvious. Medard Gabel, in
his 1979 book Ho Ping: Food for Everyone, says that we now
cultivate 12.7 percent of our 52,426,568 square miles of land for food
production. He also shows that we could cut land use in half by using
all of our grain to feed humans instead of animals.
Disasters Behind the 'Iron
One of the biggest flaws in animal rights/environmentalist logic is
the "Spaceship Earth" simile. Ecologists say, rightly so, that
our planet is a closed and limited system that can be profoundly
affected by man's activities at any point on, above, or under its
Yet their words and their actions contrast sharply, depending upon
who is doing the damage.
Our American media is positively saturated with concerns about our
environment. We are bombarded constantly with words and images
describing oil-soaked birds, clearcutting, the 'dangers' of nuclear
power, and strident warnings about the ozone layer and the 'greenhouse
Environmental groups seem to assume that the United States, as the
world's leading industrialized country, is one huge environmental
disaster riding on the razor's edge of habitability. Moreover, these
groups point to the United States as the world's number one polluter.
However, the environmentalists and the press mysteriously remain
silent about the much greater disasters in the former Soviet Union
ecological nightmares on a scale so vast they literally stagger the
The ecological situation in the former Soviet Union has always been
bad, but has reached true crisis proportions in the last few years.
Following are several examples of gigantic ecological disasters that
have plagued the Soviet Union in just a single year 1990.
Massive Rocket Fuel Spill.
In May of 1990, more than ten thousand tons (3 million
gallons) of rocket fuel leaked out of ruptured tanks at the Sverodvinsk
nuclear submarine facility and into the White Sea. One-third of all
marine life died in the area, including 100,000 seals and 5,000,000
The Sea of Azov Disaster.
In July of 1990, enough raw, untreated human sewage to fill a train
135 miles long (700,000 tons) was dumped into the Sea of Azov (a large
arm of the Black Sea), closing all resorts and residences on the sea,
which now has been described by Moscow Television as a "literal
sewer." It is not known if the shores will be habitable for
Poisoned Water Supplies.
Also in July of 1990, the entire water supply of two large cities,
Bryansk and Yaroslavi, was cut off after huge spills of formaldehyde and
phenol into their reservoirs.
A Thousand Spills.
In the Siberian Hizhnevartovsk and Novourengoi oil fields, 400,000 tons
(115 million gallons) of crude oil were spilled and lost in a single
weekend. In the first half of 1990 alone, more than three-quarters
of a million tons of oil were spilled in 1,100 separate accidents and
oil pipeline breaks.
In early August, the Soviet Union's third largest city, Vladivostok,
was closed to all visitors. All roads were blocked and all beaches for
miles in each direction were closed. All of the city's five sewage
treatment plants had broken down simultaneously, allowing more than
575,000 tons of untreated sewage to be dumped into the Sea of
Japan every day.
The volume of the Sea of Aral in Soviet Uzbekistan has shrunk by more
than 40 percent since 1960 because of water withdrawals for cotton
irrigation. The withered lake is surrounded by miles of salt flats, and
chemical-laden dust saturates the air during the frequent local
Because its supply of safe and clean water has dried up, two-thirds
of the entire Karakalpak population living on the shores of the Sea are
currently suffering from hepatitis, typhus, or cancer of the esophagus
and throat. Infant mortality in the area is hovering at ten percent, 100
times the national average.
Stalin decided to "proletarianize" Krakow, Poland, by
building giant steel mills there. Now the home of the current Catholic
Pope has become one of the filthiest and unhealthiest cities in the
world. Steel mills burning sulfur-laden soft coal belch half a million
tons of pollutants into the air annually, dissolving artwork and statues
for scores of miles around. More than 85 percent of the area's
industrial workers retire early on disability, mostly because of lung
diseases. Most food grown in the region of Krakow would be declared
unfit even for animals to eat in the United States, let alone
The Soviet Press.
Why has the American public not been informed about these ecological
outrages? Not one percent of Americans know that an average of 40
percent of all original Soviet forest cover has been destroyed by
pollutants. Nor do they realize that air over the former East Germany
contains, on the average, nine times the pollutants of air over the
former West Germany.
The fault for this pervasive ignorance certainly cannot be laid on
the doorstep of the Soviet press, which has reported all of these
disasters in great detail in all of its media outlets, many of which
(including Pravda) are translated into English every day.
The fault lies with the American press and American environmental
The Soviet press, for example, informed the Moscow office of
Greenpeace about all of the disasters described above, but not a word on
any of them has appeared in any Greenpeace literature.
When the Soviet's primitive Chernobyl nuclear plant suffered a severe
accident, Greenpeace indignation and anger was not directed at other
equally primitive Soviet nuclear plants, but instead at the much safer
and more modern plants in our own country! This is despite the fact that
Chernobyl released about 50 pounds of highly concentrated radioactive
waste into the atmosphere, including one of the deadliest isotopes
known, Cesium 137. It is expected that the disaster will be responsible
for between 17,000 and 475,000 excess deaths due to radiation-induced
This rather one-sided attitude definitely gives the lie to the
"Spaceship Earth" concept. After all, if any disaster has an
impact on the entire planet, it should not matter to the radical
environmentalists where such a disaster originates!
The Flaws In Animal-Rights
If abandoning animal research means that there are some things we
cannot learn, then so be it ... We have no basic right not to be
harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to.
T. Regan, The Case for Animal Rights.
A philosophy that holds animals superior to human beings is bound to
run into logic problems.
This is often glaringly obvious in the many animal-rights
bumperstickers decorating battered, many-hued Volkswagen busses as they
clatter down the road, merrily belching oily smoke into the air;
TYPICAL EARTH FIRST! BUMPERSTICKERS
PREGNANCY: JUST ANOTHER DEADLY
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
ANOTHER MORMON ON DRUGS
(Picture of a Christian fish with feet)
I'D RATHER BE MONKEYWRENCHING
LOVE YOUR MOTHER, DON'T BECOME ONE
VISUALIZE INDUSTRIAL COLLAPSE
THE VARIEGATED LOUSEWORT [SPOTTED
OWL, SNAIL DARTER] HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE
NO MORE BABIES!
OUR FORESTS DO NOT OWE
THE TIMBER INDUSTRY A LIVING
DREAM BACK THE BISON,
SING BACK THE SWAN
THE EARTH DOES NOT BELONG TO US
WE BELONG TO THE EARTH
MORE WILDERNESS LESS PEOPLE
(picture of a newborn baby with a slash through it),
advertised as "Send a message to the breeders"
Reference: These and other bumperstickers
were advertised in the Earth First! Journal ("The Radical
Environmental Journal"), Brigid (February 2), 1993, page 37.
The 'WE BELONG TO THE EARTH' bumpersticker is an expression of the
'New Age' belief that the Earth is the Supreme Being and is evolving
towards divinity, a process known as 'theagenesis.'
Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, says that we
shouldn't eat anything bigger than a shrimp. Singer is the 'ethicist'
who said "To give preference to the life of a being simply because
it is a member of our species would put us in the same position as
In other words, he accuses others of "species-ism" if they
do not support his animal-rights activities. But isn't Singer's attitude
towards living things that are smaller than shrimp just a form of
"size-ism?" Don't little tiny things have just as much right
to live as great big things? After all, it is the great big things that
sit at the top of the food chain and cause most of the environmental
damage and if we can go to the trouble of eliminating the eating of all
animals larger than shrimp, why don't we go all the way and eliminate
the eating of shrimp and those animals smaller than shrimp, as well?
Evidently Singer has a taste for shrimp!
Although we can duplicate most of what animals can do (with
mechanical assistance, of course), no animal can duplicate the most
unique essence of humanity: To reason. No animal could invent a
telephone or even use one. A logical person simply cannot deny that we
are superior to animals in the one place where it really counts.
If we grant animals co-equal status, we have some very thorny
problems on our hands, because, if animals are to be granted the same
rights as humans, they must necessarily be burdened with the same
If we no longer have the right to eat meat, in the interest of
fairness, we must also ban other animals from eating meat. However,
some animals, including all cats, must eat meat, because they
derive essential amino acids from meat and only from meat.
If animals are to have real rights, they must have
adequate representation. Perhaps we could elect a peacock to the
Presidency, and a few louseworts to Congress. Actually, if we really
intend to be consistent about all of this, we should not discriminate
against any non-human life. This means that we must extend
protection to insects and bacteria, as well. Since insects make up
99.99 percent of all visible life, they should run everything
under the principle of proportional representation. Ban Raid! Down
The average lion in captivity lives to be about 15 years old.
The average wild lion lives to be two and a half years old. Borneo and
Malaysia orangutans live for 35 years in the wild; in captivity, they
will live half a century. 'Wild' humans live to be about 35; 'captive'
ones, to 70. These numbers suggest that it is truly a kindness in
some ways to keep animals in well-tended zoos, despite protestations
by animal rights activists that such constitutes an 'unnatural
The Pro-Life Advantage.
There is certainly one advantage that pro-lifers have over
animal-rights activists. We get queasy feelings in the pits of our
stomachs whenever we pass a known abortion mill. Animal-rights activists
must get the same feeling whenever they pass any McDonald's, Arby's,
Burger King, or Wendy's. And there are a hundred fast-food hamburger
outlets for every abortion mill!
Scripture On Animal Rights.
The animal-rights movement essentially attacks man as being made in
the image and likeness of God by placing animals on the same level as
man. If there is no essential difference between man and animals, there
is no soul for any species, and all beings either were or were
not equally redeemed and saved by the Blood of Christ, either option of
which is utter nonsense.
When Jesus cast the demons out of the man into 2,000 pigs, He did not
interfere when all of these animals rushed into the water and drowned
When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,
two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so
violent that no one could pass that way.
"What do you want with us, Son of God," they shouted.
"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed
Some distance from them, a large herd of pigs was feeding. The
demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd
He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the
pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and
died in the water.
Matthew 8:28-32, Luke 8:26-33.
Jesus tells us about God's concern for a single sparrow but of his
infinitely greater concern for us. However, when we turn our backs on
Him and think of man as merely another animal, abortion becomes
reasonable. So does any other procedure that can be applied to animals:
Fetal experimentation and organ harvesting, sterilization, artificial
insemination, euthanasia, chimeral monstrosities ...
Despite lofty pronouncements by Ted Turner and his anti-theistic ilk,
Scripture doesn't tell us that animals are worthless, because God would
not have created them if they were. The Bible only tells us that man is
made in the image of God and therefore occupies a unique place in
The very first chapter of the Bible says it all for Christians;
God blessed them [Adam and Eve], saying "be fruitful,
multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the
sea, the birds of Heaven, and all living animals on the earth."
And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and
Genesis 1:28-30, 3:21.
Other Scripture verses directly address the relationship between
animal rights and human beings;
Yet you have made him [man] little less than a god,
you have crowned him with glory and splendor;
made him lord over the work of your hands,
set all things under his feet.
Sheep and oxen, all these,
yes, wild animals too.
Birds in the air, fish in the sea,
traveling the paths of the ocean.
Look at the birds in the sky. They do not sow or reap or gather
into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth
much more than they are?
Why, every hair on your head has been counted. So there is no need
to be afraid; you are worth more than hundreds of sparrows.
References: Animal Rights and Environmentalism.
 Ingrid Newkirk, founder and director of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), quoted by syndicated columnist Stephen
Chapman in the December 6, 1989 Chicago Tribune. Also see
"Animal Rights Activists Take Their Protests Too Fur." The
Oregonian, December 6, 1989, page C5.
 Jean-Michel Cousteau. Quoted in Richard L. Hill. "Explorer
Finds No. 1 Threat in a Word: Overpopulation." The Oregonian,
October 8, 1992, page B1.
 Mary O'Brien, staff scientist for the Environmental Law Alliance
Worldwide (E-LAW). Quoted in Kristine Rosemary. "Ecofeminism
Finding Fertile Environment." The Oregonian, March 12, 1992,
 Ted Turner, 1990 Humanist of the Year, "Humanism's Fighting
Chance." The Humanist, January/February 1991, page 15.
 Joseph Farah. "'Captain Planet:' Worse Than Imagined." New
Dimensions Magazine, March 1991, page 73.
 Stephen Talbot. "Earth First! What Next?" Mother
Jones, November/December 1990, pages 46 to 49 and 76 to 80.
 Ronald A. Taylor. "Do Environmentalists Care About Poor
People?" U.S. News and World Report, April 2, 1984, pages 51
 D. Keith Mano. "On Environmentalism." National
Review, February 10, 1989, pages 63, 65 and 66.
 Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, quoted in Charles Oliver.
"Liberation Zoology." Reason Magazine, June 1990, pages
22 to 27.
 Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, quoted in Richard
Hertz. Chance and Symbol. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1948. Page 107.
 David M. Graber quoting Bill McKibben's The End of Nature
in the Los Angeles Times book review, as printed in the Orange
County (California) Register, October 28, 1990.
 Les U. Knight of VHEMT, quoted in Joel Dippold. "Live Well
and Die." The Portland [Oregon] Alliance, March 1991, page
5. See also "That's Outrageous!, A Compilation: The Dodo
Solution." Reader's Digest, April 1992, page 147.
 Christopher Manes. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and
the Unmaking of Civilization. New York: Little, Brown, 1990. Quoted
in Bruce Frohnen. "Humans Last!" National Review,
September 17, 1990, page 50.
 Priscilla Feral, quoted in the New York Times, October
25, 1988, page 1.
 PETA news release, quoted in K. McCabe. "Beyond
Cruelty." The Washingtonian, February 1990, pages 72 to 195.
 K. McCabe. "Who Will Live, Who Will Die?" The
Washingtonian, August 1986, pages 112 to 157.
 Professor Peter F. Drucker, who offered the nation's first
college course on the environment in 1947. "Politics and Economics
of the Environment." Transcript of April 13, 1971 speech in Los
Angeles during The Claremont Colleges Annual Lecture Series. Published
by the Friends of The Claremont Colleges, Claremont, California, June,
1971. Page 8.
 "Activist Gets Prison Term." The Oregonian,
April 18, 1990, page A10.
 L. Horton. "The Enduring Animal Issue." Journal of
the National Cancer Institute, 1989:736-743. Also see L. Horton.
"Putting the Politics of Research With Animals in
Perspective." J. Soc. Res. Adm. 1988; 19(3):5-15.
 "2 Fires Set: Animals Freed." The Oregonian,
April 4, 1989, page A9.
 New York Times, January 13, 1988, page 1. As described in
the Portland, Oregon Alliance, February 1989, page 13.
 As described in Ron Arnold. "Eco-Terrorism." Reason,
February 1983, pages 31 to 36.
 Writer for the Anarchist Newsletter Business As Usual,
quoted in New Dimensions Magazine, December 1989, page 42.
 Environmental activist Helen Caldicott. Quoted by syndicated
columnist Theodore Roszak. "Environmentalists' Wild Alarms Risk
Their Cause." The Oregonian, June 14, 1992, pages D7 and
 Proletarian Revolution, Fall 1989.
 Mary Anne Warren. "Can the Fetus be an Organ Farm?" Hastings
Center Report, October 1978.
 As described in the American Family Association Journal,***
February 1989, page 9. Also see The Joint Committee on Taxation. The
General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. May 4, 1987, page
513. See also Section 803 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
 Mary Senander. "Animal Rights, Humans Wronged." Catholic
Twin Circle, April 2, 1989, page 6.
 "Woman Gets 30 Days for Baking Parrot." The Stafford
[Virginia] Star Advertiser, Week of December 19, 1988, page 6.
 Associated Press. "Judges Uphold $108,800 Fine Over Poached
Eggs." St. Petersburg [Florida] Times, March 16, 1990, page
 As described in the National Federation for Decency Journal,***
 As described in J.P. McFadden's introduction to The Human
Life Review, Summer 1982, page 4.
 Newsletter of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil
Rights, February 1986, page 5.
 "League Offers $1000 Reward in Eagle Killing." The
Wheaton [Maryland] News, January 1, 1982.
 "News In Brief: Save the Tree." The Oregonian,
March 19, 1991, page A2.
 Richard J. Mullaney's letter entitled "Animal Rights? Fetal
Rights?" Fidelity Magazine, March 1989, page 7.
 Jack Wheeler. "Where is the Outcry Over Soviet
Eco-Disasters?" The Oregonian, September 5, 1990, page B5.
Also see Sandra Miesel. "Commissars Pollute, Too." National
Catholic Register, July 8, 1990, page 5.
 William Broad. "Mountain of Trouble." The Eugene Register-Guard,
November 18, 1990.
 T. Regan. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1983.
 Book review of J. Robert Nelson's Human Life: A Biblical
Perspective for Bioethics, by James Manney. National Right to
Life News, October 24, 1985, page 9. Also see Joseph Sobran's
Washington Watch. "Nice Kitties?" The Wanderer, April
20, 1989, page 5.
 Vicki Hearne. "What's Wrong With Animal Rights: Of Hounds,
Horses, and Jeffersonian Happiness." Harper's, September
1991, pages 59 to 64.
References: Animal Rights and Environmentalism.
Ethics & Medics. Subtitled A Catholic
Perspective on Moral Issues in the Health and Life Sciences,
this venerable monthly comments on all of the important developments
in the life issues, to include animal rights and euthanasia. Subscribe
by writing to The Pope John Center, 186 Forbes Road, Braintree,
Massachusetts 02184, telephone: (617) 848-6965.
Greenhaven Press. Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San
Diego, California 92128-9009. 1987, 216 pages. Each section includes
several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The
questions asked are: "Is Genetic Engineering Ethical?;"
"Are Organ Transplants Ethical?;" "Should Limits Be
Placed On Reproductive Technology?;" "Should Animals Be Used
in Scientific Research?;" and "What Ethical Standards Should
Guide the Health Care System?" Authors include Tibor R. Macan,
Malcolm Muggeridge, and the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility
Society. A catalog is available from the above address and can be
obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. The Environmental Crisis: Opposing Viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San
Diego, California 92128-9009. 1986, 263 pages. Each section includes
several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The
questions asked are: "Is There an Environmental Crisis?;"
"Should Corporations Be Held Responsible for Environmental
Disasters?;" "Have Pollution Regulations Improved the
Environment?;" "Is Nuclear Power an Acceptable Risk?;"
"How Dangerous Are Toxic Wastes?;" and "How Harmful is
Acid Rain?" Authors include Ralph Nader, Ben J. Wattenberg, and
John S. Herrington. A catalog is available from the above address and
can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. Science and Technology: Opposing Viewpoints.
Volume I. Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office
Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 440 pages. Each
section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of
each issue: Creationism in the schools, current artificial birth
technologies, genetic engineering, organ transplants, animal
experimentation, and the Strategic Defense Initiative are just a few of
the topics whose main pro- and con arguments are thoroughly covered in
this excellent 440-page volume. This topic is covered by a series of
books, beginning with a basic set of essays entitled Sources and
continuing with an additional and updated annual series of essays. A
catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by
calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Human Life International. Project Population Myths.
36 pages, June 1992. This fact-filled booklet aggressively debunks
the eight primary myths set forth by the population controllers: The
earth cannot feed us, the exponential growth rate is a population time
bomb, planet Earth is too small, excessive population is incompatible
with national economic health, Earth does not have enough natural
resources, contraception and abortion are necessary, population growth
causes severe environmental impacts, and the Chinese forced-abortion
program is a good policy. Available from Human Life International,
7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Virginia 20879.
Jacqueline Kasun, Ph.D. Population and Environment: Debunking
Population Research Institute, Post Office Box 2024, Baltimore,
Maryland 21297-0330. Telephone: (301) 670-1864. 1991, 18 pages. This
booklet clearly outlines the history and major fallacies of the
population control movement and describes some of the connections
between environmental groups and the population control cartel. A good
introductory presentation for those who want to become familiar with
Carol Levine (Editor). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on
Controversial Bio-Ethical Issues.
Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., Guilford, Connecticut. 1984, 297 pages.
Leading thinkers on both sides of bioethical issues express their
opinions in scholarly essays on subjects including abortion, in-vitro
fertilization, surrogate motherhood, involuntary sterilization of the
retarded, informed consent, active euthanasia, withholding treatment
from handicapped newborns, suicide, the insanity defense, animal
experimentation, prisoners volunteering for research, justifiable
deception in research, organ harvesting from the dead, and genetic
engineering. A good primer on the bioethical issues.
Christopher Manes. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the
Unmaking of Civilization.
New York: Little, Brown, 1990. An interesting book in which the
author demonstrates that the primary objective of the radical
environmental/animal rights agenda is the complete dismantling of
industrial/ technical society, which would preferably be replaced by an
agarian/gatherer/hunter type of system.
Harlan B. Miller and William H. Williams. Ethics and Animals.
Humana Press, Crescent Manor, Post Office Box 2148, Clifton, New
Jersey 07015. 1983, 400 pages. This collection of about 30 essays from
distinguished authors on both sides of the "animal rights"
debate offers probably the most complete grounding in this issue
available today. Topics include animal rights, the killing of animals,
their suffering, "speciesism," animal intelligence,
experimentation on animals, animals in law, literature, and philosophy,
animals and their relationships to humans, the moral status of animals,
animal liberation, and the ethics of eating meat.
Tom Regan. The Case for Animal Rights.
Berkeley, University of California Press. 1983, 425 pages. The
author, the "intellectual leader of the animal rights
movement," has written the most scholarly and persuasive tome to
date on why animals should be given respect and rights because they are
creatures that have expectations, desires, memories, and other
attributes. The author's basic thesis is that animals have value other
than that assigned by others (oddly enough, the same argument used by
pro-lifers). Unfortunately, his views are written from a purely
Humanistic standpoint and therefore he winds up saying things that are
just as extreme as better-known animal rights activists, only in many
more words. For example, he argues that "If abandoning animal
research means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it
... We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we
are heir to." The book is very interesting reading for pro-lifers
because the author, if he were a pro-lifer, could be arguing for the
protection for the unborn.
© American Life League BBS 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activists Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.