Quick. Name the most dangerous terrorist organization in the US, organizations that are responsible forÂ 47 of the53 most destructive terrorist attacks in the US.
Right wing Militias? No.
The Christian fundamentalist types? No.
It’s the Animal rights extremists.
Via SecondhandsmokeBlog, quoting from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision U.S. v Christianson:
… between 2000 and 2005, 43 of the 57 reported terrorist attacks committed on American soil were done by ELF members or their sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front. ELFâ€™s terror attacks have caused over fifty million dollars in damage to public and private property, including the arson of condominium complexes, multiple university research facilities, a ski resort, logging facilities, a high-voltage energy tower, and almost a score of other pieces of private property.
Last year, in a Washington Post Editorial, two researchers described how animal rights terrorists have firebombed cars and homes in an attempt to intimidate researchers, and that some researchers have abandoned their careers in fear for their family’s safety.
The Foundation for Biomedical Research, which tracks attempts to intimidate researchers, has found that a handful of sporadic actions 10 years ago has ballooned to more than a hundred annually. Most involve nonviolent harassment, but a growing number have been violent.
Some of our own colleagues in Portland, Ore., have had to endure black-hooded “ALF-ers” chanting in front of their homes, “2, 4, 6, 8, we know where you sleep at night.” The message is clear: Continue your research at your peril.
But set aside the danger to researchers and their families for a moment and think about this from a purely selfish point of view. Those whose life’s work is fighting deadly diseases are now themselves under attack. Can we expect them to continue their efforts if they aren’t safe in their homes or can’t park their cars on public streets?
And in April of this year, the FBI put an animal rights terrorist on their most wanted list for arson attacks on two biotech companies.
Medical research on animals has a long history, and most of it is done with strict regulations to limit suffering of the animals involved.Â The failure of perspective: that research on animals saves lives, is ignored, since they consider that if you eat a chicken bought from a street vendor the same as if you kill a human being.
So where is the outrage?
Because animal rights is an “in” or popular cause among the elite, the jihadi fringe gets little or no publicity. Who wants to embarrass a voluptuous naked lady preaching against chicken eating?
â€œI will be the last person to condemn ALF.â€
Sheâ€™s right.Â PETA doesnâ€™t condemn the Animal Liberation Front.Â In fact, Newkirk has written a gushing biography of the terrorist group entitled â€œFree the Animalsâ€.Â Sheâ€™s provided financial support for the ALF publication No Compromise.Â PETA has, over the years, compared ALF to the French Resistance, called the terrorist group the â€œarmy of the kindâ€, and has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the defense funds of ALF members charged with crimes.Â
According to PETA’s website, Newkirk continues to be their president.
Americans rightly worry about Iranian funded mosques being a front to wage jihad, but when the FBI does surveillance on PETA and Greenpeace, one hears only outrage among those protecting civil liberties.
This is racism.
The PETA types tend to be upper class college educated (and white), and so few in the media want to face a firestorm in trying to expose how radical is their agenda, which equates the worth of an animal to the worth of a human being: Indeed, if one reads Peter Singer, an animal should have more “right” to life than a retarded child.
In plain English: save the dog, kill the retard.
In the third world, this love of animals results in 50 thousand British pounds being spent to save the lives of 600 great apes, while four million human beings have been killed by famine, war and diseaseÂ in the same area in the last twenty years.
Or when 700 thousand Euros are given to preserve wildlife in Cameroon, when only 80 US dollars are spent for medical care per capita (population 18 million) and 15 out of 100 children die before their fifth birthday.
Or in the Philippines,Â foreign PETA “activists” will get publicity for demonstrating against eating cheap locally raised chicken, while street kids scavenge nearby to feed their families. (Never mind that without the cheap factory raised chickens and fish, there would be no cheap protein in the diet for the growing urban poor population in this country. What’s next? Protesting that spraying for Dengue fever carrying mosquitoes is “killing cuddly mini beasts”?).
Let us name the “animal rights” types for what they are: all in favor of cuddly animals, but oblivious to the needs of people, be they sick people whose cures may never be found if research is stopped, or poor people who will die of malnutrition related diseases if modern agricultural research is stopped.
A deeper inspection of the philosophy and rhetoric of the “Animal rights” movement shows a frightening willingness to defend the rights of animals over that of human.
Just like the mentally unbalanced and nihilists who are inspired to kill as jihadists, so too the “animal rights” rhetoric that equates a child with a pig with a fish essentially allows others, usually upper middle class college students from elite families, to similarly kill or bomb in the name of their ideology.
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She writes about human rights at Makaipablog.