PDA

View Full Version : Animal rights?



Helios Panoptes
10-08-2011, 11:26 AM
Assuming that you believe in human rights (which you may not -- I do not), do you think that non-human animals also have rights? Why or why not?

Saturni
10-08-2011, 12:02 PM
It's funny, Hitler and Mussolini, both considered two of the twentieth century's greatest villains , were outspoken animal rights activists.

Birka
10-08-2011, 03:39 PM
Should rabbits be protected from the fox?

Saturni
10-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Should pitbulls be protected from niggers?

Jake Featherston
10-09-2011, 07:50 AM
I love animals, but they don't have rights, by simple virtue of the fact that they're not humans, and rights only accrue to humans. If you don't belong to a species capable of articulating the abstract doctrine of rights, then you don't possess them. In my home, animals (dogs, anyway) are granted enormous privileges, but I reject utterly the somewhat ridiculous idea that a non-human animal has "rights."

I do believe in some statutes barring cruelty-to-animals, but I advocate that for other reasons of social utility; that animals have a "right" not to be cruelly treated simply doesn't enter into it.

_______
10-09-2011, 07:53 AM
many animals are more sentient than some disabled people, and most animals are nicer than most people, but i don't believe in human rights, so no.

Lithium
10-09-2011, 07:59 AM
The only right that animals have is to be eaten. And this is something I refuse to do.

rhiannon
10-09-2011, 08:03 AM
It's funny, Hitler and Mussolini, both considered two of the twentieth century's greatest villains , were outspoken animal rights activists.

I had no idea. The Irony....

rhiannon
10-09-2011, 08:05 AM
Animals have the right to live a life free from abuse by humans. They are also inhabitants of this planet.

The food chain, on the other hand, is just that....the food chain. It is part of the natural order of things. However, I prefer to obtain my meat from sources known to treat the animals humanely, if at all possible.

Boudica
10-09-2011, 08:14 AM
I'm not quite understanding the question.. What is a "non-human animal"? No animal is a human being, is a human animal an animal which humans own, and are domesticated, etc? While a "non-human animal" is a wild animal like a lion or a bear?

Turkey
10-09-2011, 08:22 AM
I like killing but i hate slavery and torture. That's why national socialism appeals to me.

We should be killing as many animals as we can every day, but herding them on to trucks and clouting them around the head? No. Everyone deserves their chance and should be free till the end.

GeistFaust
10-09-2011, 08:26 AM
This is a good question but I think in most if not all cases there will always be a specific conclusion of no in regards to animals having rights. A better and much broader question which would envelop this specific question in a fundamental sense is what is a right and how do we determine whether this being has a right or not. To a certain extent whether a being has a right or not has everything to do with its internal biological and chemical orientation.


This orientation determines both the psychological and intellectual nature of the thing. I do believe that some of the more advanced primates in nature have the innate capacity to think at a bare minimum. This is to say they are capable of utilizing things for a specific and logical end. That said this is the exception and even these more advanced primates lack an adequate understanding of the details of both the external and internal quality of a thing.


This in large part has to do with the fact that animals do not have the general capacity to freely will themselves. This inherent incapacity to freely will themselves coincides with both a lack of certain intellectual and psychological characteristics and traits which garner in most humans a self-awareness of their logical nature or identity of things around them. This self-awareness in general allows for humans to utilize things either in a theoretical or practical way.



The theoretical capacity to understand a specific logical intuition coincides in every way with the rights an individual being might garner for itself whether it be in a social or environmental sense. An infant for example only has as much of a right to exist as it is given which is unconditional in a sense. This right to exist in part depends on the inherent value which a thing possesses in general and the inherent value of depends on its intellectual and psychological well-being.



An individual is given a "sense" of possessing certain or specific rights to some extent or another due to the realization of its caregivers that it possesses a certain potential to live life on its own individual basis at a certain point. I believe that if one can garner for themselves a certain degree of independence from others and utilize their independence in a proper and lawful manner socially speaking that certain rights should be granted to them. Animals are incapable of this independence because they depend on the group mentality so much which in large part has to do with their intellectual and psychological inferiority by nature.



In a few cases this applies to some humans but in most cases individuals within the human race possess to some degree or another the capacity to be granted this right because it is within their capacity to attain. If you mean rights in a more legalistic or social sense where an individual had to abide by certain standards and norms to be granted a right than it is rather nonsensical to even ask the question. Animals by nature and to varying degrees are brutish and vulgar most of the more wild variants don't respect the supposed rights of other animals.



Violation of territory, abuse, and even the slaughter of other animals is sometimes an immediate necessity for an animal's survival. In the end what is considered right more or less in the animal kingdom is that which secures the immediate need to survive and here we realize survival of the fittest is a fundamental principle and rule of nature. Its merely a fancy and a superficial invention of humans to even attempt to grant certain social rights and statuses to animals such as dogs and cats. This rather fallacious notion must be deemed as full of bombastic nonsense just as much as the fact that all men should have equal rights is nonsense.

billErobreren
10-09-2011, 08:37 AM
Weeeell:rolleyes2: I should say now that I care more for a puppy's ear than the lives of Africans, Guatemalans & all the folks in third world shitholes alike:ohwell: for the record I voted for the third one.

GeistFaust
10-09-2011, 08:56 AM
Weeeell:rolleyes2: I should say now that I care more for a puppy's ear than the lives of Africans, Guatemalans & all the folks in third world shitholes alike:ohwell: for the record I voted for the third one.


Yes but this does not answer the fundamental question which is present at hand. I do not believe in equal rights and believe that some people have a greater capacity to attain rights and to be granted them than others. Animals have no capacity to attain rights in a social sense nor do they have any endowed on them by nature because all supposed inherent rights are for the most part chimeras projected by the human mind. They lack free will and it coincides with an inferior level or degree of intelligence which they have the inherent potential to attain to. Feminists sicken me with the way they want to turn humans into pets and pets to a certain extent into humans in a sense this would be a violation of the natural order.

Jake Featherston
10-09-2011, 08:58 AM
I'm not quite understanding the question.. What is a "non-human animal"? No animal is a human being, is a human animal an animal which humans own, and are domesticated, etc? While a "non-human animal" is a wild animal like a lion or a bear?

:rolleyes:

A "non-human animal" means a member of an animal species, other than homo sapiens.

Boudica
10-09-2011, 09:47 AM
:rolleyes:

A "non-human animal" means a member of an animal species, other than homo sapiens.

:rolleyes: right back to you-

Please forgive me but I am just used to people saying ANIMALS instead of non-human animals because I guess I'm an arrogant person and think that there is just a LITTLE BIT of a difference between us and them ;).

Any how, of course domesticated animals that are pets, etc should have rights, but my definition of rights may be something completely different to yours since you may be some animal activist or something.. I think that certain animals which aren't widely known for being eaten should not be hunted, (which already is a law, here at least). I prefer animals to humans, I want them to be protected of course :P.

I think that people who are caught abusing animals should have their balls bitten off by the animal that they abused.

billErobreren
10-09-2011, 09:50 AM
Yes but this does not answer the fundamental question which is present at hand. I do not believe in equal rights and believe that some people have a greater capacity to attain rights and to be granted them than others. Animals have no capacity to attain rights in a social sense nor do they have any endowed on them by nature because all supposed inherent rights are for the most part chimeras projected by the human mind. They lack free will and it coincides with an inferior level or degree of intelligence which they have the inherent potential to attain to. Feminists sicken me with the way they want to turn humans into pets and pets to a certain extent into humans in a sense this would be a violation of the natural order.

:roll eyes, really? by now I thought you'd know how I'd feel about the matter which is indifferent:D. I despise people & usually don't care to when their asses die irrelevant of any issues(except for white females whom I tend to be nicer to). the more animals populate on wide scales & eat people, the better could care less about "reason" or their ability to think.:icon_yawn:

Eldritch
10-09-2011, 11:41 AM
Any society that does not look after the well-being of the animals living within its sphere is not one I'd want to live in or contribute to.

And it is my own personal experience that these Nietzschean übermensch-lone wolf wannabes, who go on about not believing in human rights, would be among the first to collapse, if they suddenly found themselves living outside a community that does.

Osweo
10-09-2011, 01:02 PM
Rights have no objective existence, other than what is pragmatically considered to be appropriate in a given time and by a given section of people.

Pragmatically, within my own culture, I would like to see animals' lives guaranteed against sadism, neglect or even what I would consider 'undignified' treatment. This reflects on our society as much as one the welfare of the animal individuals in question.

I am for a more pro-active international policy on this matter than I am on more human cultural things, as our culture is the only one that has really penetrated the essence of humanity's place in the biosphere on an ecological level, and we can't go allowing savages to burn and chop down natural wonders, ruining the planet, or engaging in such morally offensive behaviour as draining bile out of bears or forcing them to 'dance' by cruel 'training' for the 'entertainment' of onlookers.

Mordid
10-09-2011, 01:06 PM
Animal rights groups don't hate on any animals, even if it's not that animal's protection they are trying to promote.I for one love dogs and I am disgusted when people are cruel to them. I even prefer them slightly to cats but I would be just as angry if someone were cruel to a cat because it's equally unfair. They sound like a bunch of nutcases and I doubt they'll go very far. The crazy old cat lady from The Simpsons comes to mind. :rage

Piparskeggr
10-09-2011, 01:25 PM
As many know, I absolutely dote on my kitties and treat them and other beings, with such kindness as I can muster. This is how I was raised, every living thing is to be treated with an even hand and a light touch, until they earn otherwise.

As a pet owner, it is my duty to treat my property humanely.

In return, I receive affection and companionship of a sort.

I have killed birds, beasts and fish for food, and appreciate deeply the lives taken by others on my behalf so that I might eat.

Rights for animals?

No, not until one of my beasts can raise her paw and take (with complete understanding and articulation of principles) the same Oath as did my wife and I when we put on the uniform of our country.

Saturni
10-09-2011, 01:28 PM
Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character; and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man.
--Arthur Schopenhauer

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer

But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy.
--Plutarch

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.
--Leonardo Da Vinci

Saturni
10-09-2011, 01:37 PM
As a pet owner, it is my duty to treat my property humanely.

I have killed birds, beasts and fish for food, and appreciate deeply the lives taken by others on my behalf so that I might eat.

Rights for animals?

No, not until one of my beasts can raise her paw and take (with complete understanding and articulation of principles) the same Oath as did my wife and I when we put on the uniform of our country.

Your pets are your property?!? Like your wagon or your wife?

Actually, you didn't give a sh*t about the lives of the animals you killed to stuff your face. If you did, you wouldn't have killed them. Moral relativity and hypocrisy skip their merry ways to the slaughterhouse, it would seem.

What about the dogs that work for Uncle Sam sniffing out bombs, do they qualify as vets? You bet your ass they do.

Piparskeggr
10-09-2011, 02:15 PM
Your pets are your property?!? Like your wagon or your wife?

Actually, you didn't give a sh*t about the lives of the animals you killed to stuff your face. If you did, you wouldn't have killed them. Moral relativity and hypocrisy skip their merry ways to the slaughterhouse, it would seem.

What about the dogs that work for Uncle Sam sniffing out bombs, do they qualify as vets? You bet your ass they do.

Yes my pets are property that I obtained, chattel that I can dispose of legally, albeit with remorse attached as I do feel quite fond of them. Not owning a wagon, that artifact does not appertain. My wife is not, as she has the same ability to dispose of me as I of her.

As for the animals I have killed, what I feel is between me and them, and is not within your knowledge base of me, but I will define it as satisfaction tinged with sadness. I have never felt elation over death, save for some humans who truly deserved such as punishment. I promised myself a long, long time ago that when I killed something and felt nothing, I would no longer hunt, nor eat flesh that others have killed for me. I still hunt when the opportunity arises and I still consume meat as a part of my diet.

Military working dogs should be accorded a good rest of their lives should they survive service. In all cases, they have performed that for which they were bred and trained to good utility, in aid of saving human lives. Albeit, their service is indentured servitude, not a free will offering of their lives.

Saturni
10-09-2011, 02:27 PM
Yes my pets are property that I obtained, chattel that I can dispose of legally, albeit with remorse attached as I do feel quite fond of them. Not owning a wagon, that artifact does not appertain. My wife is not, as she has the same ability to dispose of me as I of her.
Sounds like you're going to need that wagon after all to move that moveable feast you call "morality" around with. :thumb001:


As for the animals I have killed, what I feel is between me and them, and is not within your knowledge base of me, but I will define it as satisfaction tinged with sadness.
Wagon time.


I have never felt elation over death, save for some humans who truly deserved such as punishment. I promised myself a long, long time ago that when I killed something and felt nothing, I would no longer hunt, nor eat flesh that others have killed for me. I still hunt when the opportunity arises and I still consume meat as a part of my diet.
I'm sure the animals you murder, not kill, murder, will be able to take some amount of solace knowing you can still muster up the requisite amount of "remorse" over the act. Good for you. Please keep being that shining example of moral rectitude.


Military working dogs should be accorded a good rest of their lives should they survive service. In all cases, they have performed that for which they were bred and trained to good utility, in aid of saving human lives. Albeit, their service is indentured servitude, not a free will offering of their lives.
And an expert on free will as well. Wowzers!

Osweo
10-09-2011, 03:32 PM
Someone above sounds like a ranting oddball, and someone like a well rounded thoughtful and mature human being... :coffee:

Damiăo de Góis
10-09-2011, 03:47 PM
I wonder if the people who posted in this thread all like a good steak?

Saturni
10-09-2011, 03:48 PM
I wonder if the people who posted in this thread all like a good steak?

No.

Kataphraktoi
10-09-2011, 10:30 PM
The modern animal rights' movements are symptomatic of Western degeneracy. I am a proud speciesist. The categorical difference between humans and animals is even greater than the difference between animals and minerals. People's excessive sentimentalism for animals leads to a nihilistic doctrine of equality and hatred of their fellow man; for if man and animal are equal there can be no sense of proportion or goodness -- "We are no better than bacteria!" This is really the bestial worldview of naturalism. Most of these animal rights activists have no problems whatsoever with abortion.

Saturni
10-09-2011, 11:07 PM
The modern animal rights' movements are symptomatic of Western degeneracy. I am a proud speciesist. The categorical difference between humans and animals is even greater than the difference between animals and minerals. People's excessive sentimentalism for animals leads to a nihilistic doctrine of equality and hatred of their fellow man; for if man and animal are equal there can be no sense of proportion or goodness -- "We are no better than bacteria!" This is really the bestial worldview of naturalism. Most of these animal rights activists have no problems whatsoever with abortion.
And your religion is listed as Xtain. Who would have thought.

Turkey
10-09-2011, 11:39 PM
"We are no better than bacteria!"

We aren't!

Beorn
10-09-2011, 11:43 PM
The modern animal rights' movements are symptomatic of Western degeneracy. I am a proud speciesist. The categorical difference between humans and animals is even greater than the difference between animals and minerals. People's excessive sentimentalism for animals leads to a nihilistic doctrine of equality and hatred of their fellow man; for if man and animal are equal there can be no sense of proportion or goodness -- "We are no better than bacteria!" This is really the bestial worldview of naturalism.

Both sides are extremes. That, to me, is the problem.

The whole discussion is the two ends of the extreme speaking louder than those who 'couldn't give a fuck, but don't wish ill harm upon another living creature.'


Most of these animal rights activists have no problems whatsoever with abortion.

I always reckon they should be tested upon instead. :thumb001:

Hevneren
10-10-2011, 02:09 AM
Personally, I see no harm in hunting and killing animals, as long as a) it wasn't done with unnecessary cruelty, b) it wasn't an endangered species and c) it wasn't someone's pet.

I think if we're going to discourage cruelty among humans we should discourage it human-to-animal too. Nothing good comes out of denying an animal's right to be free or to not be tortured or molested by humans.

The Lawspeaker
10-10-2011, 02:14 AM
Personally, I see no harm in hunting and killing animals, as long as a) it wasn't done with unnecessary cruelty, b) it wasn't an endangered species and c) it wasn't someone's pet.

I think if we're going to discourage cruelty among humans we should discourage it human-to-animal too. Nothing good comes out of denying an animal's right to be free or to not be tortured or molested by humans.
I don't mind hunting as a hobby as long as you eat your kill or sell it so other people can consume it (and one should only be allowed to make a certain number of kills per year unless you need to hunt because your livelihood depends on it). If you just leave it to rot you're wasting natural resources and as long as it is done in certain limits - so hunting endangered species should remain banned.

GeistFaust
10-10-2011, 03:07 AM
The modern animal rights' movements are symptomatic of Western degeneracy. I am a proud speciesist. The categorical difference between humans and animals is even greater than the difference between animals and minerals. People's excessive sentimentalism for animals leads to a nihilistic doctrine of equality and hatred of their fellow man; for if man and animal are equal there can be no sense of proportion or goodness -- "We are no better than bacteria!" This is really the bestial worldview of naturalism. Most of these animal rights activists have no problems whatsoever with abortion.


I completely agree with this you can make a connection between the modern animal right's movements with radical feminism and cultural marxism. I know these are overused terms and we might not always understand the groups which these terms represent adequately enough. That said it is unfortunate how other men who I deem inferior and chaotic shambles of waste are trying to reduce the proud and sublime brilliance of the more aristocratic men in humanity.

Its truly a shame that many a proud man who is self aware of sublime truths which the average Hoi Polloi could not afford to comprehend are being attacked with such brutality by degenerate scum bags. These degenerate morons care nothing but for their own self interests and petty enterprises but they do not mind trying to pretend to care for the marginalized such as animals. The marginalized are marginalized for a reason and any act of altruism towards them should be deemed suspicious since these supposed kind and compassionate acts will only trumpet in agendas and ideologies which will threaten to undermine the core values and principles of western society.



The average person does not realize the threat that special interest groups such as animal activists pose to a civilized and sensible society and culture. There first task and final task in destroying even the notion or concept of a civilized or sensible society or culture is to remove the differences which are inherent in nature and self-evident in society. These psychological attacks are infiltrating all the social structures whether they be public or private. We are all to some extent or another enveloped in this psychological aura which the cultural marxists have projected over us. The only way to escape it is through skeptical thinking. That said this will not alone suffice and it will eventually be necessary to take these bastards to task and exploit and expose all their lies and chimeric fancies.

Turkey
10-10-2011, 03:53 AM
I completely agree with this you can make a connection between the modern animal right's movements with radical feminism and cultural marxism. I know these are overused terms and we might not always understand the groups which these terms represent adequately enough. That said it is unfortunate how other men who I deem inferior and chaotic shambles of waste are trying to reduce the proud and sublime brilliance of the more aristocratic men in humanity.

Its truly a shame that many a proud man who is self aware of sublime truths which the average Hoi Polloi could not afford to comprehend are being attacked with such brutality by degenerate scum bags. These degenerate morons care nothing but for their own self interests and petty enterprises but they do not mind trying to pretend to care for the marginalized such as animals. The marginalized are marginalized for a reason and any act of altruism towards them should be deemed suspicious since these supposed kind and compassionate acts will only trumpet in agendas and ideologies which will threaten to undermine the core values and principles of western society.



The average person does not realize the threat that special interest groups such as animal activists pose to a civilized and sensible society and culture. There first task and final task in destroying even the notion or concept of a civilized or sensible society or culture is to remove the differences which are inherent in nature and self-evident in society. These psychological attacks are infiltrating all the social structures whether they be public or private. We are all to some extent or another enveloped in this psychological aura which the cultural marxists have projected over us. The only way to escape it is through skeptical thinking. That said this will not alone suffice and it will eventually be necessary to take these bastards to task and exploit and expose all their lies and chimeric fancies.

either that, or we could just be a bit kinder to the poor beasts.:D

Jake Featherston
10-10-2011, 04:09 AM
Please forgive me but I am just used to people saying ANIMALS instead of non-human animals because I guess I'm an arrogant person and think that there is just a LITTLE BIT of a difference between us and them ;).

Never-the-less, you knew what was being asked. Your question was insincere. Hence the ":rolleyes:," which was quite well-deserved.

SwordoftheVistula
10-10-2011, 05:38 AM
A Japanese restaurant has perfected the balance

http://porkyourpork.bestuncensored.com/pork-your-pork

First you make love to the animal, then it is killed and cooked and you eat the animal



but herding them on to trucks and clouting them around the head?

Well OK, that should only be for the 'occupy w/e' ppl

Boudica
10-10-2011, 07:17 AM
Never-the-less, you knew what was being asked. Your question was insincere. Hence the ":rolleyes:," which was quite well-deserved.

No, I honestly didn't know what was being asked, if I did exactly why would I bother asking? I have never heard anyone say "non-human animal" when referring to animals.. That is just like referring to humans as "civilized, non primitive, human animals" or something.. When people refer to other people, they don't call them animals, they call them human beings. Due to the fact that we are not like any other living thing on this planet in a numerous amount of obvious ways. I guess since you claim to know my thoughts/intentions you consider your self to be a well trained psychic, either that or you are just yet another pinhead.

I'm sure that you will try to correct me and say "we are technically animals/mammals", so I'll save you the time.. Scientists technically classify us as being animals in a scientific/biological way. Due to scientists creating six categories of life: animals, plants, fungus, protista, archaea and bacteria. We are not in anyway biologically comparable to the above. We are animals because of how we reproduce, how we need to feed on other living things for energy and other essential nutrients, Cell division, and other things of the sort.

May I suggest that you do not create threads asking for the opinions of others if you A:insist on using rarely used and incredibly vague terms & B:refuse to explain these vague and unused terms and instead decide to act like a smart ass to those who don't understand these terms for obvious reasons

Saturni
10-10-2011, 12:43 PM
I completely agree with this you can make a connection between the modern animal right's movements with radical feminism and cultural marxism.
I'm curious as to how the "modern" animal rights movement differs from the ancient animal rights movement, care to explain?

Also, please explain what Cultural Marxism and Feminism have to do with animal rights. Just how does protecting animals from abuse equate to forced egalitarianism among humans. And please, be specific because I intend to rip your answer apart.


I know these are overused terms and we might not always understand the groups which these terms represent adequately enough. That said it is unfortunate how other men who I deem inferior and chaotic shambles of waste are trying to reduce the proud and sublime brilliance of the more aristocratic men in humanity.
Like Schopenhauer did?


Its truly a shame that many a proud man who is self aware of sublime truths which the average Hoi Polloi could not afford to comprehend are being attacked with such brutality by degenerate scum bags.
What sublime truths? And who is supposed to be attacking whom and for what?


These degenerate morons care nothing but for their own self interests and petty enterprises but they do not mind trying to pretend to care for the marginalized such as animals.
Trying to pretend? So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly, and it's hard because your responses are long and rambling, animal rights activists are only pretending to care about the issue? Am I getting this right? If so, just how did you arrive at this conclusion? By what methodology was this conclusion drawn?


The marginalized are marginalized for a reason and any act of altruism towards them should be deemed suspicious since these supposed kind and compassionate acts will only trumpet in agendas and ideologies which will threaten to undermine the core values and principles of western society.
So, according to you, one of the principles of Western society is the right to abuse animals, and that those who work to stop that abuse and punish those who've committed it, are working to undermine Occidental culture? For example, a subhuman like Michael Vick, by torturing animals for his own amusement, was, by doing so, working to preserve and further the interests of Occidental culture, and those that sought to bring his crimes to justice were agents of anti-Occidental forces?


The average person does not realize the threat that special interest groups such as animal activists pose to a civilized and sensible society and culture.
So one has to be a member of a "special interest" group in order to defend animal rights? And it's, again according to you, these special interest groups that are posing a threat to "civilized and sensible" society?" So, in a "civilized and sensible" society, Jews should be allowed to ritually slaughter animals and that those who oppose such barbarities pose a threat? So the, the Dutch legislators must be completely in the thrall of one of these special interest groups then, right?

Dutch vote to ban ritual animal slaughter, Jews and Muslims unite in protest
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/06/28/dutch-vote-to-ban-ritual-animal-slaughter-jews-and-muslims-unite-in-protest/


There first task and final task in destroying even the notion or concept of a civilized or sensible society or culture is to remove the differences which are inherent in nature and self-evident in society.
So in order for lets says Communism to succeed it needs to destroy the notion in the minds of the Volk that torturing dogs for financial gain or allowing Jew and Raghead "clerics" to ritually slaughter animals? Again am I understanding your train of thought correctly?


These psychological attacks are infiltrating all the social structures whether they be public or private.
And just what psyops are "they" supposed to be employing? Also, what is the tactical aim of the exercise?


We are all to some extent or another enveloped in this psychological aura which the cultural marxists have projected over us.
All of us? Again, I would like to know how you came to this conclusion. Just how are we all enveloped in a Cultural Marxist psyop in regard to the animal rights issue? Are you proposing, as it seems you are, that we have all been brainwashed by the Comitern into thinking that the abuse of animals is, somehow, a crime?


The only way to escape it is through skeptical thinking.
Ok, so the way to escape being another Manchurian Candidate is to indulge in barbarous acts of animal cruelty? Following your logic Michael Vick and all those Jew and Raghead butchers are actually the true standard bearers of Occidental culture, n'est-ce pas?


That said this will not alone suffice and it will eventually be necessary to take these bastards to task and exploit and expose all their lies and chimeric fancies.
And just what bastards need to be brought to task? The police who arrest criminals for abusing animals? The juries that find them guilty? The judges that sentence them? The jailers that jail them?

Are these individuals all equally culpable, in your eyes, for promoting this insidious Communist conspiracy to denuder the Occident of its cultural fruit?

GeistFaust
10-10-2011, 09:37 PM
It depends on which culture you are speaking about in order to be more specific. Some were much more invested in making sure that animal rights were not abused while some were more reckless about it. The modern animal rights movement is abusive I think because they put more emphasis on animals than on humans. Its almost as if the roles have been reversed in a sense and I am afraid this is just indicative of the modern man's decline into a barbaric state of sorts.


Cultural Marxism and Feminism have everything to do with the modern form of animal rights in the modern west more or less. First off in order to explain why I think they are connected I must let you know that I do not believe any creature has inherent rights except for some bare minimums which regard the dignity of that being. Animals should be treated with dignity and should not be used for man's entertainment or pleasure. At the same time one must realize that the respect or dignity an animal deserves correlates with the savagery of that creature. If an animal is less domesticated and more savage than not in most cases they deserve to be treated with less respect.



That said animals are completely different from humans even the ones that mimic some basic human mannerisms and expressions. This means the rights animals garner should be of a lesser kind than the ones humans achieve at a social level. The animal rights movement of today thinks that it can give animals some social rights especially those more domesticated animals. This is blasphemy I believe and an undermining of Western core values and principles. If animals have now become socially viable and acceptable creatures we might as well all the rift raft, scumbags, and degenerates of society to have certain rights they do not deserve.


That said this is not the case and for good reason but still the animal rights activist are being hypocritical in giving animals rights and not the lower castes in society. By the way I am not assuming that animal right's activist desire to give certain animals specific social rights I have actually had a discussion with quite a few who believed this. There reasoning was that specific animals had become important and integrable parts of the family structure and even had developed strong relationships with certain people to the point where they became socially viable beings.


They concocted every sort of nonsensical chimera to try to validate their claims. The vulgarity of their reasoning and the preposterous idiocy of it would more or less coincide with general rationale of the feminist and cultural marxist movements. Its inspiration could only have come from such ungodly and irreverent sources. If I need to make a more specific conclusion as to how the animal's right movement is merely a symptom of the Western World's lack of morality and rational belief systems as feminism and cultural marxism than I am doing you and myself a grave injustice.


The sublime truths of reality and unreality are being attacked and undermined by the modernist. They seek to arrest all authenticity and uniqueness and lock it up into a framework of nonsense and uniformity. The ressenters of all master morality are attacking the masters of morality who are bearers of all good and beautiful sublime truths. We are being infested with a sick and ugly mentality in the west and it desires to force everyone into a filthy average-ness whence we will all be subdue to a cultural slavery of sorts. It is an outright blasphemy and as these resenting clowns seek to make everything that is ugly and vulgar holy and sublime and to make all that is authentic and unique look ugly and twisted.

We are seeing a vicious attack on individualism that has not been witnessed since the industrialization and urbanization of Europe. Just like the poor peasants of Europe especially in Germany had their lands taken from them and sold to the Jewish industrialist the freedoms and rights of the few aristocratic souls in society are being attacked. This attack is not just merely an attack on the authenticity and uniqueness of the individual its an attack on the sublime mentality of that which is good, strong, and beautiful. The same would apply to the Jewish turning the farming land of Germany into an industrial wasteland deprived of all beauty, creativity, and authenticity.



In this case the volkish mentality was under attack and the private man who toiled in isolation was forced to give up his uniqueness and authenticity to conform with the group think which was necessitated during the urbanization of Europe. We are seeing the frameworks within the modern age attempting to sublate themselves in a way so as to pretend to transcend and move past the traditions by creating the most ungodly of traditions.



Technology is being utilized not to produce but to create stagnancy and to deprive the individual of his individuality. Unfortunately the average man does not realize that technology is being utilized by the elites to control and bind him to a particular group mindset which makes itself prone to the vulgarity and viruses the elites wish to inject into it. The modern individual is still under the seemingly necessary illusion that such modes of modernism allow him individuality and freedom when it in actuality they seek to deprive of him both by pretending to offer him these things.


That is correct animal right activist are only trying to feign animal rights activism all to undermine the inherent value of humanity and to transform the modern man into a plastic and superficial being lacking uniqueness and authenticity. I reached this conclusion through experience with these specific activists and the methodology which I reached this conclusion was drawn from historical analysis.

A ghastly specter has thrust itself over the modern man and by analogy I can compare it with many other time frames within specific cultures and societies if you wish to know. The great empires of the west are ready to collapse and will do so like most others have. That is the lack of uniqueness, rationality, and morality will be the undoing of the West just as it was the undoing of the Romans even when they were arrayed in all their wonders and beauty.


But what is the value of an Empire when alas its all but fate and destiny for it to be replaced by another and even a greater one. Unfortunately I do not see a viable heir to the Western Empire except for two ghastly enterprises namely the Jews and China. In a sense the cultural marxists, feminisms, and animal activists who wish to see animals take a higher social value than humans are all in a way whether directly or un-directly allies with the Jews and the Communistic Chinese.

Nope that is not my point whatsoever as I have illustrated clearly above. The abuse should be regulated to some extent or another but we should realize that some abuse will happen and even be necessary depending on the situation and animal. As I said some animals are more savage than others and those that are more savage deserve to be abused at times and treated with less respect. I condemn the act of Michael Vick but than again its not as bad as people want to make it out to seem. Pitbulls are vicious and vulgar creatures and in a sense I see it to be a lesser crime than it would have been if they pitted to greyhounds against each other.

Not always there are exceptions of course to this general rule. Most special interest groups are dangerous especially since many have become quite large corporations and organizations. Most of these special interest groups pretend to be non-profit when their agenda is to make as much money as possible. In a sense special interest groups today regardless of the good or ill nature of their agendas and ideologies are little more than thieves and vagabonds.

This means we can not trust them and that in a sense all they are out to do is feign that they actually are interested in a specific cause when its all a ploy to get into the pocket of rather ignorant individuals. You are taking my words out of context in a civilized and sensible society the Jews should be restricted at all cost to ensure the civility and sensibility of the culture to survive and this means protecting certain animals to some extent or another. The boundaries as to what animals we protect and the degree to which we protect them from abuse though will not always be clearly defined as there will always be exceptions in certain cases.


I think you are partially understanding my specific train of thought but than again I think you are taking it out of context which is something I can understand. Its quite common to throw the specific train of thought of any particular writing out of alignment especially if the details are far and few in between. I think communism is a vulgar notion and that torturing dogs for financial gain is truly inhumane. I think those religious groups which necessitate the ritual torture of animals should be regulated by the states. They should have to abide by certain standards and norms laid down by local institutions or the state government to not torture animals and that not doing so will result in certain consequences.


This is a very elusive question and there might be "multiple" reasons for employing such subtle psychological attacks on the individual and the volk mentality. There are also going to many tactical aims employed in the course of these exercises but these exercises will all be means in essence to train the human mind as it respects society in a similar way to the way animals are trained.

That said there will be certain means of socialization which will be used to distract the average man from the agendas and psychological ideologies which are being subtly and silently slipped into those means of socialization. Most likely the average man will ignore and neglect the psychological component of socialization because the average man is a rather intellectually and psychologically inferior man.

To be more specific the Cultural Marxists are using the standards and norms of society which the average man finds the need to conform and abide to encrypt the average man with agendas and ideologies that are corrupt and twisted. This means the average man little to his own knowledge is exposing himself to situations where he can be easily exploited to psychological manipulation. The means of socialization have turned into opportunities to spew propaganda against the masters of morality and to undermine anything that is rational inquiries through seemingly rational counterattacks.


Rational counterattacks that are full with and riddled with inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and lies. The average man has been led to believe in lies and most of it can't be blamed on him but on the permeation of the group mentality throughout the means of socialization.


Its a very common sense conclusion which I find to be self-evident because as social creatures those which are in control of the means of regulating this process wish to create a certain degree of conformity. A certain degree of conformity in respects to the individuals going through different modes of socialization.I think that we have been brainwashed to a certain extent to think that something is a form of animal abuse when it is truly not. This means that they have blown the abuse and the degree of certain cases of animal out of proportion in order to psychologically shell shock the common man.


A good example would be those commercials of poor, neglected, and abused animals which are clearly blown out of proportion to garner a reaction from the common public. The elites and cultural marxists want to make it look worse than it really is because its the only way to draw people's attention and to get them to react to a specific set of situations. The thing is the Cultural Marxists care nothing for protecting the animal rights they propose to make socially necessary and applicable. They only feign to give a damn and to care so as to distract the general public with another issue that is petty and frivolous.



Its all another venue through which they can garner power and money and that is the main underlying theme behind the means of socialization and specific issues wish the Cultural Marxists wish to draw special attention to. I do despise the Cultural Marxists for thinking that going out and hunting certain types of game and than killing it is some sort of a crime. The fact that they want to brainwash the public into thinking such specific acts are inhumane and barbaric are inhumane and barbaric acts as well. I find the act of hunting animals to be quite a civil and rather aristocratic time of leisure and entertainment if it is done properly and adequately.


Not whatsoever I do not think this is the case at all. They are not the true standard bearers of Western Culture but are actually defilers of its traditions and values. I think you have severely taken what I meant to say out of context because I do have a tendency for making it seem like I suppose one thing when its really just a form of sarcasm. I believe we should to some extent or another keep the general public from engaging in barbaric acts of animal cruelty.


This would be necessary to preserve the core traditions and principles of the West which has made it such a proud and glorious site for the world to behold. The Cultural Marxists though are ironically as much as they are for animal activism as a way of distorting and corrupting society and the masters of morality see figures like Michael Vick as well as the animal rituals of the Jews and Muslims as the standard bears for occidental culture.


This is because they see these figures as resenting forces against the traditions and principles of the West which has made it so great and wondrous. This means that Cultural Marxists are hypocrites and setting double standards most likely when they are promoting animal rights and they are being abusive to both humans in societies as well as to the animals which they wish to protect from abuse by giving them rights they do not deserve.


Not whatsoever and these individuals are fine. I think the accusations you have made against me clearly indicate you did not understand what I meant by being against animal rights and activism. I am fervently against those who wish to make animals into humans or to appear as equals of humans. I am against those types which wish to adorn and array their pets as if they are somehow an integrable part of society by making them appear in certain ways to appear like a human.


I never said I was for animal abuse especially if the animal is domesticated and not a savage creature by nature. I am just against those animal activist which wish to make animals into humans and to make humans into animals thus attempting to equalize the inherent differences which separate the two. This process of role reversal is clearly self-evident in regards to what some animal activist have said regarding the matter and it is an attack on the individual as well as all that is good or beautiful within the confines of the Volk.


Not all of these individuals are equally culpable as a group I believe the animal activist who wish to give animals certain rights which they don't deserve to be the worst of those who wish to take from the Occident of its cultural fruit. This is because I think its worse to not being able to realize certain self-evident and inherent differences that lie between animals and humans than it is to realize the necessary roles that both genders ineffably fall into from a social standpoint.


Once animals have gotten certain rights they don't deserve I wonder if plants and even rocks will be allowed certain rights only intelligent and self-aware individuals deserve to have given to them. I also think there are different varieties to be found within these different groups which are essentially linked with cultural Marxism. Some of these varieties are worse than others but that said we are differentiating the degree of negativity to the group mentality in general and not the different individual sects which represent that group mentality.


In a sense we have been led to believe that the animal activists intent is to put an end to inhumane animal abuse when this is just a ploy to give animals unnecessary rights in alignment with the average individual in society. The necessity of ridding ourselves of the inhumane nature of animal abuse should align itself in a consistent manner with the core traditions and values of Western society which has reaped many a cultural fruit. This though is not the intent of the average animal activist it is just a pretended desire or intent which has a much more sinister agenda and plot hidden within its depths.

Osweo
10-10-2011, 09:41 PM
^ wow. :suomut:

Turkey
10-10-2011, 09:54 PM
@geist

I wrote a poem a couple of years ago about what you been wind bagging. You said the other night you like poerty.....


The jew and the Dog


Ware the dog. For hath the overlord not turned thy woman against thee. And given her unto the black negro to defile?

'o' cries the Lord.'but she hath but gone willingly to his crib, Slaking the thirst of her lust for that which thee cannot provide. As thou art not a warrior, hunter and have never been.
All the annals of history are fantasy. Achilles and Ajax exist did not. Alle and Clovis are but imagining and William Wallace was but a dream. The banners that flew above
Wellington and Napoleon were leaves upon the wind and the great wars of the last century were an exaggeration. Thou art but a shrimpy dweeb. How can your own woman be satisfied with the likes of you?'

Then the Lord was well satisfied in his strife and in his denunciation of his part, in his craftiness turned his attention to the next, least likely assailed. He came unto the dog.

And into the dogs ear he doth whispered, 'see how the woman runs the kitchen. How she doth rustle the plastic bags at will. Verily, she divvies up the food from the refrigerator.
But where is the dog? Where are you at meal time. Not once, not twice but three times a day. Where is the faithful hound?'

'In the laundry,' says the lord.' In the yard. nawing a way on an old bone. Why have you never risen in the pack. Ever did thee assumeth that
one day thou wouldst ascendeth from the laundry to the bedroom. But the woman has born pups and verily they have climbed to a position your superior before their very conception.'

'Why dost thou stay at home when the pack drives in the car at will? Where is the 3 meals a day?'

All this, did the lord say unto the wretched dog, and did commiserate with him and conspired with him on devices whereby the lord could bring about just laws for the dog. Where outsiders who would look after the dogs interest be let into the woman's house to see that no longer did she keep the dog from the couch and the table top.

'In her greed she has brought about her doom and deserves to clean up after the dog and cook extra food for the dog, and restraineth from keeping the dog from her own bed at night. But surely she deserves all this extra angst for her oppression of you, oh dog,' cries the lord in indignation.

'Never did she nurse you at night when you were sick, or payeth for expensive medical bills for thee. And if she did, then it was purely out of selfishness in order to dominate you and derive pleasure therein.'

'But lo' sayeth the lord once more.'See the department of animal protection and prevention of cruelty therein. Are they not good people?'

'verliy' quoth the dog.'it is so, but they are just there for dealing with bad owners. my owners don't mistreat me.'

'never mind all that' hearkened the lord, for he, master of us all, is steeped in craftiness. 'there is no difference between your owner and the"bad" owners'.

'We shall exult the department of protection of animals and prevention of cruelty therein,'commanded the lord.' We shall rise them up to great station and then the woman shall have to grovel at their feet.'

'the department of cruelty to animals and the protection of therein, and you the dogs have a linked fate. Where they rise, so will you. Will you let them into your yard so that
they might bring low the mighty woman and they shall drink from the woman's cups and so shall you. and they shall tell the woman what to do in her house and so will you.


In his heart the dog did not feel quite right about all this but who was he to question the overlord. Did not the lord own his pack's house? Did his pack not pay homage to the overlord with weekly mortgage repayments and watch the overlord on the television?
I suppose what the overlord is suggesting must be the natural progression of things, the dog did start to think.

stranger things have happened.

Saturni
10-11-2011, 01:26 AM
The modern animal rights movement is abusive I think because they put more emphasis on animals than on humans. Its almost as if the roles have been reversed in a sense and I am afraid this is just indicative of the modern man's decline into a barbaric state of sorts.
So it's "barbaric" to be concerned over the welfare of animals and to see that they aren't mistreated and that those who do mistreat them are punished? This is, in your estimation barbaric?

You might want to rethink your avatar then.



Cultural Marxism and Feminism have everything to do with the modern form of animal rights in the modern west more or less.
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:


First off in order to explain why I think they are connected I must let you know that I do not believe any creature has inherent rights except for some bare minimums which regard the dignity of that being.
Again, rethink that avatar.


Animals should be treated with dignity and should not be used for man's entertainment or pleasure.
Yet you think those who protect the rights of animals are accomplices in an international Communist conspiracy to topple Occidental culture.


At the same time one must realize that the respect or dignity an animal deserves correlates with the savagery of that creature. If an animal is less domesticated and more savage than not in most cases they deserve to be treated with less respect.
Makes no sense. If you know an animal is capable of tearing your face off, then you better be giving that animal all the respect in the world.


That said animals are completely different from humans even the ones that mimic some basic human mannerisms and expressions.
Yes, they are superior to 99.9% of humanity, I'll grant you that.


This means the rights animals garner should be of a lesser kind than the ones humans achieve at a social level.
And the Lord God Jehovah gave Man dominion over the animals. Sound familiar? Sorry, but I don't accept the precepts of Jewish ritual slaughter.


The animal rights movement of today thinks that it can give animals some social rights especially those more domesticated animals.
Yes, to be free from being abused, tortured, and killed. I can see how this leads to Marxist takeover. :rolleyes:


This is blasphemy I believe and an undermining of Western core values and principles.
Thank you Leviticus.


If animals have now become socially viable and acceptable creatures we might as well all the rift raft, scumbags, and degenerates of society to have certain rights they do not deserve.
So let em get this straight, you think that by protecting an animal's right not to be abused, that this will lead to an overthrow of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition? This is starting to sound like Stormfront... Certainly the Illuminati must be behind the animal rights movement.



That said this is not the case and for good reason but still the animal rights activist are being hypocritical in giving animals rights and not the lower castes in society.
Gee, I must be a bad man for esteeming the life of a dog or cat over that of some ghetto scumbag. And a hypocrite to boot! Truly my sins are many.


By the way I am not assuming that animal right's activist desire to give certain animals specific social rights I have actually had a discussion with quite a few who believed this.[quote]
I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.
--Leonardo Da Vinci

[quote]There reasoning was that specific animals had become important and integrable parts of the family structure and even had developed strong relationships with certain people to the point where they became socially viable beings.
See above.


They concocted every sort of nonsensical chimera to try to validate their claims.
Yes, one must perform all sorts of mental gymnastics in order convince oneself that abusing animals isn't an infamnia.


The vulgarity of their reasoning and the preposterous idiocy of it would more or less coincide with general rationale of the feminist and cultural marxist movements.
Talk about preposterous idiocy and posturing! You who equate the protecting of animals from abuse as the prelude to the Red Terror.


Its inspiration could only have come from such ungodly and irreverent sources.
Wait, just got a PM from the Comitern now. Says the animal rights thing is on course and that Occidental culture will fall within the next week or so. Ok, you were saying?


If I need to make a more specific conclusion as to how the animal's right movement is merely a symptom of the Western World's lack of morality and rational belief systems as feminism and cultural marxism than I am doing you and myself a grave injustice.
So, according to you, protecting animals from abuse is a sign of immorality? So then people like Michael Vick, for example, would be our new role-models of proper Occidental morality?


The sublime truths of reality and unreality are being attacked and undermined by the modernist.
The sermon continues. :rolleyes:


They seek to arrest all authenticity and uniqueness and lock it up into a framework of nonsense and uniformity.
Who's this they? The Greys? Bigfoot? ZOG? The Illuminati?


The ressenters of all master morality are attacking the masters of morality who are bearers of all good and beautiful sublime truths.
You know Nietzsche was an animal rights activist as well.


We are being infested with a sick and ugly mentality in the west and it desires to force everyone into a filthy average-ness whence we will all be subdue to a cultural slavery of sorts.
You know there's a ZOG under your bed taking all this down, right?


It is an outright blasphemy and as these resenting clowns seek to make everything that is ugly and vulgar holy and sublime and to make all that is authentic and unique look ugly and twisted.
This is starting to sound like something from the Old Testament. Sure you're not some rabbi?


We are seeing a vicious attack on individualism that has not been witnessed since the industrialization and urbanization of Europe. Just like the poor peasants of Europe especially in Germany had their lands taken from them and sold to the Jewish industrialist the freedoms and rights of the few aristocratic souls in society are being attacked. This attack is not just merely an attack on the authenticity and uniqueness of the individual its an attack on the sublime mentality of that which is good, strong, and beautiful. The same would apply to the Jewish turning the farming land of Germany into an industrial wasteland deprived of all beauty, creativity, and authenticity.
NAZI GERMANY AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
1933 Law on Animal Protection
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/reading/germany/nazianimalrights.htm

One of the few things they got right.


In this case the volkish mentality was under attack and the private man who toiled in isolation was forced to give up his uniqueness and authenticity to conform with the group think which was necessitated during the urbanization of Europe. We are seeing the frameworks within the modern age attempting to sublate themselves in a way so as to pretend to transcend and move past the traditions by creating the most ungodly of traditions.
Speaking of Volkish attitudes towards animal right, see above.


Technology is being utilized not to produce but to create stagnancy and to deprive the individual of his individuality. Unfortunately the average man does not realize that technology is being utilized by the elites to control and bind him to a particular group mindset which makes itself prone to the vulgarity and viruses the elites wish to inject into it. The modern individual is still under the seemingly necessary illusion that such modes of modernism allow him individuality and freedom when it in actuality they seek to deprive of him both by pretending to offer him these things.
Yes, the Matrix is a bitch, but you haven't explained how protecting animal from abuse devalues Occidental culture. Instead you've gone on a long, meaningless rant that has nothing to do with anything other than your pet obsessions.


That is correct animal right activist are only trying to feign animal rights activism all to undermine the inherent value of humanity and to transform the modern man into a plastic and superficial being lacking uniqueness and authenticity. I reached this conclusion through experience with these specific activists and the methodology which I reached this conclusion was drawn from historical analysis.
Slow day at the creative writing class, huh?

Actually, the conclusion you should have drawn was that turning a discussion on animal rights into Evola-esque rant on the perceived downsides Modern Age would equal unimaginable boredom.


A ghastly specter has thrust itself over the modern man and by analogy I can compare it with many other time frames within specific cultures and societies if you wish to know. The great empires of the west are ready to collapse and will do so like most others have. That is the lack of uniqueness, rationality, and morality will be the undoing of the West just as it was the undoing of the Romans even when they were arrayed in all their wonders and beauty.
Have you thought of seeking professional help?


But what is the value of an Empire when alas its all but fate and destiny for it to be replaced by another and even a greater one. Unfortunately I do not see a viable heir to the Western Empire except for two ghastly enterprises namely the Jews and China. In a sense the cultural marxists, feminisms, and animal activists who wish to see animals take a higher social value than humans are all in a way whether directly or un-directly allies with the Jews and the Communistic Chinese.
Great speech Gen. Ripper. Don't forget to deny them your "essence."


Nope that is not my point whatsoever as I have illustrated clearly above.
Clear as mud.


The abuse should be regulated to some extent or another but we should realize that some abuse will happen and even be necessary depending on the situation and animal.
So you've worked out a system of gradation for this, have you?


As I said some animals are more savage than others and those that are more savage deserve to be abused at times and treated with less respect.
This is like listening to a Xtain preach about the End of Days...


I condemn the act of Michael Vick but than again its not as bad as people want to make it out to seem. Pitbulls are vicious and vulgar creatures and in a sense I see it to be a lesser crime than it would have been if they pitted to greyhounds against each other.
You know jacksh*t about pitbulls, buddy.


Not always there are exceptions of course to this general rule. Most special interest groups are dangerous especially since many have become quite large corporations and organizations.
Like the League For Internet Loonies, an institution I'm sure you're a high ranking member of.


Most of these special interest groups pretend to be non-profit when their agenda is to make as much money as possible. In a sense special interest groups today regardless of the good or ill nature of their agendas and ideologies are little more than thieves and vagabonds.

This means we can not trust them and that in a sense all they are out to do is feign that they actually are interested in a specific cause when its all a ploy to get into the pocket of rather ignorant individuals. You are taking my words out of context in a civilized and sensible society the Jews should be restricted at all cost to ensure the civility and sensibility of the culture to survive and this means protecting certain animals to some extent or another. The boundaries as to what animals we protect and the degree to which we protect them from abuse though will not always be clearly defined as there will always be exceptions in certain cases.
It's all a ploy. All the people who rescue animals from kill shelters, from abusive owners, and from dogfighting rings, they're all in on it. All in on the international Communist conspiracy to destroy Occidental culture. If only I'd seen the big picture earlier..


I think you are partially understanding my specific train of thought but than again I think you are taking it out of context which is something I can understand. Its quite common to throw the specific train of thought of any particular writing out of alignment especially if the details are far and few in between.
I'll concede following this delusional rant was a bit a chore, yes.


I think communism is a vulgar notion and that torturing dogs for financial gain is truly inhumane.
Do you now?


I think those religious groups which necessitate the ritual torture of animals should be regulated by the states.
It should be regulated, not banned? Careful, your Torah is showing.


They should have to abide by certain standards and norms laid down by local institutions or the state government to not torture animals and that not doing so will result in certain consequences.
So then, according to you, it's alright if the state is in charge of managing the welfare of animals, but when civilians do it it's another Red October?


This is a very elusive question and there might be "multiple" reasons for employing such subtle psychological attacks on the individual and the volk mentality. There are also going to many tactical aims employed in the course of these exercises but these exercises will all be means in essence to train the human mind as it respects society in a similar way to the way animals are trained.
Wow, this is like reading an exert from a David Icke blog. Are the space lizards in any way involved in this conspiracy?


That said there will be certain means of socialization which will be used to distract the average man from the agendas and psychological ideologies which are being subtly and silently slipped into those means of socialization. Most likely the average man will ignore and neglect the psychological component of socialization because the average man is a rather intellectually and psychologically inferior man.
And there wasn't any interest in your screenplay then?


To be more specific the Cultural Marxists are using the standards and norms of society which the average man finds the need to conform and abide to encrypt the average man with agendas and ideologies that are corrupt and twisted.
You're aware that your descending into meaningless gibberish now, right?


This means the average man little to his own knowledge is exposing himself to situations where he can be easily exploited to psychological manipulation. The means of socialization have turned into opportunities to spew propaganda against the masters of morality and to undermine anything that is rational inquiries through seemingly rational counterattacks.
You can always wear a tinfoil hat, you know.


Rational counterattacks that are full with and riddled with inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and lies. The average man has been led to believe in lies and most of it can't be blamed on him but on the permeation of the group mentality throughout the means of socialization.
Prozac is wearing off, isn't it.


Its a very common sense conclusion which I find to be self-evident because as social creatures those which are in control of the means of regulating this process wish to create a certain degree of conformity.
You know the CIA can see everything you type.


A certain degree of conformity in respects to the individuals going through different modes of socialization.I think that we have been brainwashed to a certain extent to think that something is a form of animal abuse when it is truly not. This means that they have blown the abuse and the degree of certain cases of animal out of proportion in order to psychologically shell shock the common man.
If you don't know abuse when you see it, then you're either blind or willfully ignorant.


A good example would be those commercials of poor, neglected, and abused animals which are clearly blown out of proportion to garner a reaction from the common public. The elites and cultural marxists want to make it look worse than it really is because its the only way to draw people's attention and to get them to react to a specific set of situations. The thing is the Cultural Marxists care nothing for protecting the animal rights they propose to make socially necessary and applicable. They only feign to give a damn and to care so as to distract the general public with another issue that is petty and frivolous.
I was thinking that someone should use your post as a soliciting device to help raise money to treat mental illness.


Its all another venue through which they can garner power and money and that is the main underlying theme behind the means of socialization and specific issues wish the Cultural Marxists wish to draw special attention to. I do despise the Cultural Marxists for thinking that going out and hunting certain types of game and than killing it is some sort of a crime. The fact that they want to brainwash the public into thinking such specific acts are inhumane and barbaric are inhumane and barbaric acts as well. I find the act of hunting animals to be quite a civil and rather aristocratic time of leisure and entertainment if it is done properly and adequately.
When I dream, I dream of getting people like yourself behind the wire of a KZ.


Not whatsoever I do not think this is the case at all. They are not the true standard bearers of Western Culture but are actually defilers of its traditions and values. I think you have severely taken what I meant to say out of context because I do have a tendency for making it seem like I suppose one thing when its really just a form of sarcasm. I believe we should to some extent or another keep the general public from engaging in barbaric acts of animal cruelty.
Every paragraph you write just repeats itself, ad nauseam.


This would be necessary to preserve the core....
You're no longer worth quoting in full.


This is because they see these figures as..
Boring.


Not whatsoever and these individuals are...[
Tedious.


I never said I was for animal abuse especially,,,
Sorry, there's no middle ground on this issue.


Not all of these individuals are equally...
I think I've figured it out, you were beaten up at a Morrissey concert, weren't you.


Once animals have gotten certain rights they...
Yes, the Domino theory. You've mentioned this a million times now. Boring.


In a sense we have been led to believe...
Rubbish.

Beorn
10-11-2011, 01:30 AM
You know jacksh*t about pitbulls, buddy.

He got the part right about them being "vicious and vulgar creatures" though.

Nihtgenga
10-11-2011, 01:56 AM
He got the part right about them being "vicious and vulgar creatures" though.

Vicious and vulgar creatures? The nanny dog? No, they are made vicious and vulgar by sick individuals.

http://www.ywgrossman.com/photoblog/?p=676

GeistFaust
10-11-2011, 02:10 AM
I can not respond to your post because you took a great deal of what I had to say out of context. You did not understand probably because of somethings which I said which appeared to mean something from that which you might have taken it to mean. I am not for the abuse of animals especially domesticated animals who in a sense have been civilized as much as an animal can become "civil". I am against the animal activists who want to make animals into humans and to reduce the inherent superiority which humans have over animals. I do not believe in arraying animals in human apparel and even though some gay woman or uniformed child might find it to be cute and endearing this is all a product of humanism and egalitarianism which I despise.

Beorn
10-11-2011, 02:20 AM
Vicious and vulgar creatures? The nanny dog? No, they are made vicious and vulgar by sick individuals.

If the discussion was about the genetic disposition of blacks or Arabs, this forum would rocking to a unanimous decision, but the argument is about a sub-species of a dog. A dog which was bred to harass and kill animals that no longer exist in the day-to-day relevance of humans.

Are they 'vicious and vulgar'? Yes, they are because they are genetically pre-disposed to be as such, and have, on many occasions, showcased their talents upon children and other innocent humans.

"Oh, but the humans were probably baiting them" say the anti-humanists, and they are probably right: the humans had dared to be human in front of a fucking dirty, mindless animal.

The sick individuals are those who keep breeding them and allowing them into human society. If I had my way I'd castrate the lot of you.

Nihtgenga
10-11-2011, 02:24 AM
All breeds of dogs attack people.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

So we shouldn't have any dogs any longer?

Beorn
10-11-2011, 02:29 AM
All breeds of dogs attack people.

Some more than others.


So we shouldn't have any dogs any longer?

Altogether? No. Sure dogs will still be kept as pets and some breeds are more accustomed and bred towards that aim, but there does exist breeds which should be put down and wiped out.

Do you own a tract of farmland which needs an alert system to warn you against encroaching malicious biological entities?

99.99% of dog owners will say: No

Edelmann
10-11-2011, 02:33 AM
Rights? More like privileges...

People always try to justify animal rights by appealing to how cute they are, or how "human-like" they seem, but very few will argue that other animals have the same qualities which justify a conception of human rights.

GeistFaust
10-11-2011, 02:34 AM
All breeds of dogs attack people.

http://www.understand-a-bull.com/Articles/OtherBreedBites/AllDogsBite.htm

So we shouldn't have any dogs any longer?



This is their natural disposition to a certain extent. I do find dogs to be the most noble in the animal kingdom especially in a few breeds where is there this combination of intelligence and strength. I do think people need to take a little better care of their dogs though I am tired of having them roam around my neighborhood and onto my property. This is where dogs and other such domesticated pets should be kept on site so as not to pollute someone else property. Its amazing to see how neglectful and ignorant some pet owners of this fact because they like to project this illusional belief that their pets are good and innocent. This is another reason why animals do not deserve the same social rights as humans unlike what some modern animal activist wish to have happen.

arcticwolf
10-23-2011, 12:04 AM
I voted yes. I will not repeat the reasons, Saturni has put forward reasons for the rights very eloquently. Until consciousness of the populace reaches level of deeper understanding of reality, the rights are necessary to protect animals from both the cruel and the ignorant.

Loddfafner
10-23-2011, 01:17 AM
Animal rights have been tried. We see how well that worked out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg

[/TROLL]

The Lawspeaker
10-23-2011, 01:20 AM
Animal rights have been tried. We see how well that worked out.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS.jpg

[/TROLL]

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/343/2/f/trololololol_by_bluelink97-d34k9ib.jpg

sydvice2
04-23-2012, 08:40 AM
Yes, just as humans have rights, so do animals

Barbarossa
07-30-2012, 01:52 PM
Whole concepts of rights is funny. I don't belive in modern enlightement style human rights. I belive only in human dignity which is derived from human free-will and reason. I also belive that for humans eating meat is natural thing and I found vegeterianism silly. However, because of man reason, free-will and concience good person will try to avoid doing animals harm for nothing. If man kill cow or boar for food this is nature, but such things like fur coats and bull fighting are sadistic and silly.

Hong Key
08-03-2012, 03:30 AM
Of course the National Socialists loved animals (and nature) because most White people love animals. I believe in the idea of animal welfare but animal rights is pro White genocide.

National Socialist Germany was the first nation to ban vivisection by Hermann Göring, prime minister of Prussia.

On August 28, 1933, Göring announced in a radio broadcast:

An absolute and permanent ban on vivisection is not only a necessary law to protect animals and to show sympathy with their pain, but it is also a law for humanity itself.... I have therefore announced the immediate prohibition of vivisection and have made the practice a punishable offense in Prussia. Until such time as punishment is pronounced the culprit shall be lodged in a concentration camp.

Hermann Göring liberating lab animals and them seig heil in thanks
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/33/vivisectionforbidden193.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_F7aw1xcYVLg/S1fDyeLqnrI/AAAAAAAAA_0/c6GCAsI1jsI/s1600/hitlerdeer.jpg

http://i51.tinypic.com/2afjwnm.gif

http://www.somethingwagging.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/adolph-hitler-rare-pictures-images-ww2-nazi-germany-third-reich-ww2-second-world-war-photos-dog-bitch-blondi-01.jpg

http://blakow.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sieg_heil.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/3070/2840620522_9fbd074ecd.jpg

from:wikipedia

Animal welfare in Nazi Germany

There was widespread support for animal welfare in Nazi Germany and the Nazis took several measures to ensure protection of animals. Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring, were supporters of animal protection. Several Nazis were environmentalists, and species protection and animal welfare were significant issues in the Nazi regime. Heinrich Himmler made an effort to ban the hunting of animals. Göring was an animal lover and conservationist. The current animal welfare laws in Germany are modified versions of the laws introduced by the Nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

Quorra
08-03-2012, 05:24 AM
Of course the National Socialists loved animals (and nature) because most White people love animals. I believe in the idea of animal welfare but animal rights is pro White genocide.


That's why you and everyone you can influence has to cast aside this left and right nonsense.

In my opinion, the right/left system is destroying us the most.

Hong Key
08-03-2012, 08:32 AM
PETA, all White faces except Clarke Duncan
http://petacms.peta.org/resized-image.ashx/__size/594x0/__key/CommunityServer-Blogs-Components-WeblogFiles/00-00-00-01-48/0576.Tulsa015_5F00_DB.JPG

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/data/articlestandard/dvm/512009/648364/veterinary_PETA_8_460.jpg
http://media.naplesnews.com/media/img/photos/2007/10/30/071030ME-PETA1_t607.jpg
http://www.urnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/pamela-anderson-peta-turkey2.jpg

Now only if we can get them to use all that energy to save our race, there race, the White race

TheNepenthe
08-03-2012, 09:09 AM
Yes, just as humans have rights, so do animals

Just in some places!

As lex naturalis (natural right/law) animals are entitled to be given those rights within legal positivism (the current law system).

This is application of their right within possibilities of compromise of interests and needs:

-Right to life: not to be killed unless necessary and if doing so, then without torture, a fast death

- Freedom from torture

- Freedom from slavery - not to be held within space smaller and more crowded than is necessary for their healthy life and development