I can’t pretend to be much of an animal-lover myself personally, but I do fully recognise that our fellow creatures on this planet should not be needlessly mistreated. Discouraging impressionable young children from poisoning badgers, incinerating budgerigars, drowning fish or drop-kicking hamsters over rugby-posts is, of course, a universal public good. But what about henceforth forbidding them from riding horses, too? Well, you could make a decent fist of saying the practice is physically abusive, and so ought not to be encouraged, I suppose. But what about if the horses junior jockeys are riding are wooden? What then?
According to PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), even this previously innocent-seeming action is now profoundly morally deviant. The prominent animal rights charity has just launched an international campaign of writing off to circus and fairground operators, ordering them to remove all the wooden horses from their carousels and merry-go-rounds in order to end the currently ongoing global equine genocide.
Addressing Aaron Landrum, CEO of Chance Rides, America’s largest merry-go-round manufacturer, PETA argued wooden carousel horses “normalise the use of animals as conveyances and amusements”, suggesting they replace all their old steeds with new ones “in the shape of cars, airplanes, spaceships, bulldozers and other vehicles or whimsical designs, like shooting stars, rainbows [of course!], or brooms”. As is well known, “children learn through play”, and by letting children play at being jockeys at the funfair, they learn that animals are mere toys to be played with by their future adult selves, too, a vicious cycle which ought to be broken to “help create a more just and merciful world”.
PETA wrote off to wooden horse-exploiters in Holland, too, prompting the following dismissive response from Atze J. Lubach-Koers, Chairman of the Dutch National Association of Fairground Owners: “Maybe we should tell PETA that the horses aren’t alive.”
For PETA’s Sake!
In actuality, PETA does not believe that carousel horses are alive at all – but it also knows full well that this isn’t the way in which corrupt journalists such as myself will most likely phrase the matter in their headlines, in search of easy clicks. Even a staid outlet like the Times went with the suggestively misleading ‘Activists ride to rescue of carousel horses’.
A cynic might guess that PETA, in search of free easy publicity, has an entire PR department devoted towards designing deliberately daft campaigns, in the full knowledge dupes like me will then go straight online and begin writing about them: in which case, well done, mission accomplished! Ridiculous past efforts from PETA have included its 2009 plea to rebrand fish as ‘sea kittens‘, to make them seem cuter and cuddlier and thus bring a complete halt to the pastime of angling, a stupid 2012 stunt requesting Nottingham be rechristened ‘Not-Eating-Ham’, and (a little more serious) its irresponsible 2014 poster-campaign dubiously implying drinking milk causes autism, which it doesn’t.
Particularly notable are PETA’s attempts to grab the attention of kids by targeting videogames as with its piggybacking (a phrase which, as we shall soon see, is highly ‘animal-racist’) upon the release of the 2012 Nintendo DS game Pokémon Black & White 2 by making an online knock-off parody, PETA’s Pokémon Black & Blue: Gotta Free ‘Em All. This made the rather hyperbolic claim that the gameplay in Nintendo’s real title, which involved players collecting fictional cartoon animals from the equally fictional land of Unova inside tiny balls, then forcing them out again to battle one another with their unique magical powers, encouraged small children to engage in bouts of playground cockfighting. Furthermore, according to PETA’s associated website:
Again, the point of this seemed to be to gain cheap media attention by virtue of easily being misreported along the lines of “Ha ha ha, now these cretins even think Pokémon are real!” which isn’t really accurate, but certainly makes for a good headline.
Does PETA’s brand of campaigning actually work? Well, it certainly gets the group lashings of free publicity. But as it tends to be overwhelmingly negative and mocking in tone, as in this present sceptical write-up of the charity’s antics, you could easily argue it simply undermines PETA’s entire case by making its employees sound like a bunch of lunatics, and thereby smearing animal rights as whole as an equally lunatic cause by association. But there is another potential problem with this line of self-promotion, too: what if some people out there actually end up taking it all seriously?
#BeeKind
PETA’s most successfully ‘gone viral’ operation was surely its 2018 crusade to remove and rewrite common animal-related phrases from the English language, like bowdlerising ‘Flog a dead horse’ into ‘Feed a fed horse’, or ‘Bee in your bonnet’ into ‘Thorn in your side’. No longer was it permissible to speak of ‘Killing two birds with one stone’; instead, you had to ‘Feed two birds with one scone’. Interestingly, whilst ‘Shoot fish in a barrel’ was now likewise to be verbally banished, its officially approved replacement was to become ‘Steal candy from a baby’, implying that, whilst animal-abuse was now verboten, child-abuse was fine and dandy.
Again, this was easily misreported – which I would speculate may have been the whole intention – as being a story along the lines of “Now PETA wants to ban the saying ‘pig-ignorant’ to avoid offending pigs!” or “Now PETA thinks the term ‘snail mail’ spreads damaging racial stereotypes against tardy gastropods!” But, again, it wasn’t quite this way: to think otherwise was merely to be done up like a kipper, if I’m still allowed to phrase it that way. As with banning wooden horses, PETA was actually claiming that “these old sayings… can normalise abuse” in infant minds and that therefore “teaching students to use animal-friendly language can cultivate positive relationships between all beings and help end the epidemic of youth violence towards animals”.
Consequently, PETA teamed up with its internal TeachKind subsidiary department, which designs animal-based learning resources for schools, to produce rather twee posters for classrooms from which, if pupils weren’t careful, they could end up drawing the erroneous conclusion that even using the word “milk” could badly upset the dairy herds from which it had been “stolen”, or that talking of “ants in your pants” was a form of heinous insect-based sexual abuse:
All very silly and pointless, but probably mostly harmless? Mostly, no doubt. But not necessarily always, because, whilst the generous interpretation of PETA’s PR tactics is simply that the group seeks easy publicity through overt absurdity, the less generous interpretation is that, to some degree, it actually believes all this stuff! One of PETA’s current campaigns goes under the following logo:
By saying that “Every Animal Is Someone”, PETA appears to be implying that, in some sense, animals are actually human beings, not really animals at all. Is this just a rhetorical device, intended to elicit empathy for all God’s creatures, akin to its 2009 ploy of rebranding fish as Sea Kittens? I’m not so sure. On its campaign website, PETA specifically implies that all animals have “unique personalities”, just as humans do, even Ed Miliband.
Well, maybe I can see how you could say that about a particularly cheeky monkey or a clever parrot. But I have yet to meet an eccentric termite or an arrogant axolotl. Yet, according to PETA, “Geese fall in love and are loyal to their partner for life, even when facing danger”.
This is purest anthropomorphism, as if PETA has fallen for its own Pythonesque propaganda: love as such is a purely human emotion, geese mating for life being simply a useful evolutionary survival strategy, not some form of avian marriage.
Sympathy for the Devil-Fish
Worse, PETA has an associated downloadable “empathy pack”, which, absolutely drenched in far-Left Newspeak, encourages people to “Speak up when someone makes a racist, ableist, speciesist or otherwise disparaging comment.” Speciesist? Is that a real word now? Yes – Wikipedia says so. It was coined in 1970 (by humans, just to be clear) in order to “create a rhetorical and categorical link to racism and sexism”.
“See The Individual,” orders the PETA empathy pack, alongside a large photograph of a parrot-fish. I’m sorry, but I can’t see any such thing within the limited frame of a small marine creature. “When it comes to what matters, we are all the same,” the blurb continues. How? I can’t even swim.
Apparently, “If we empathise with someone… it’s impossible to intentionally cause them harm.” If all species can only come together as one, then “there would be fewer wars, other violent conflicts and mass shootings”, most of which are evidently caused by longstanding antipathy between warring tribes of men, orangutans, lobsters and ocelots. Inevitably, joining as one with animal-kind will even help solve (here we go…) “the climate catastrophe”.
Empathy-seekers are urged, apparently by a cute talking squirrel, to perform a series of deeply weird self-help exercises, like: “Write down a list of traits you have in common with someone of a different race, age, religion or species, such as ‘We both feel hunger and pain, we both love our families, and we both want to be free of oppression’.” The only thing I have in common with a red squirrel, I’m afraid, is a recent experience of a mass of unwelcome new arrivals.
Gulls On Film
How are animals being subjected to “oppression” by the malign forces of Western capitalism? Just like the workers of the world in the view of Marx and Engels, they are being exploited, maybe even sexually, if you listen to certain animal rights obsessives who are even further beyond the fringe than PETA itself is.
The most interesting PETA recommendation is that empathetic wannabe-wolfmen get to know their fellow fauna better by watching what are termed “respectfully filmed (unobtrusive) nature documentaries”. What does PETA mean by “unobtrusive” here? Incredibly, there is a peripheral school of thought amongst the terminally anthropomorphic wing of the animal rights community that animals, like human beings, ought to have a legal right to privacy when performing potentially embarrassing acts like engaging in sex, masturbating, giving birth or having a poo.
Notoriously, back in 2010, Brett Mills, then a lecturer in Film Studies at the ‘University’ of East Anglia, released a study in the Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, arguing:
We have an assumption that humans have some right to privacy, so why do we not assume that for other species, particularly when they are engaging in behaviour that suggests they don’t want to be seen? … The key thing in most wildlife documentaries is filming those very private moments of mating or giving birth. Many of these activities, in the human realm, are considered deeply private, but with other species we don’t recognise that.
Here’s more, from the abstract of Mills’ paper:
It is argued that the ‘speciesism’ which affords humans a right to privacy while disavowing other species such rights is one of the tenets upon which humanity’s perceived right to maintain mastery over other species is itself maintained; that is, in order for wildlife documentaries to ‘do good’ [by increasing environmental awareness] they must inevitably deny many species the right to privacy.
When an amused British press subsequently reported on Mills’s paper, it was further noted that, following a 2008 edition of Springwatch, the BBC had received complaints from the public when presenter Bill Oddie voyeuristically spied on two innocent beetles having sex with his morally dubious hidden camera set-ups, describing what should have been a highly private act of loving union in the breathless language of an over-excited sports presenter: “He crash-lands on top of a likely looking lady. There’s a bit of luck! One thing’s for sure: this boy is horny!”
In response, Brett Mills was reported as saying that, whilst the idea animals have a moral right to privacy may seem a bit peculiar at first glance, the idea should not necessarily be dismissed wholly out of hand. “We can never really know if animals are giving consent” to appear in Bill Oddie’s extensive insect-porn collection unknown, “but they do often engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they’d rather not encounter humans”, like hiding away in burrows, Mills said. When will PETA finally launch its inevitable campaign against beetle-erotica, then? That’d certainly get them a few more cheap headlines.
Heavy Petting
Yet it turns out certain blue(-whale) movies might be perfectly ethical after all – namely, ones involving obviously homosexual animals, such as rainbow trout. Here is the abstract of Mills’ 2013 paper ‘The Animals Went in Two by Two: Heteronormativity in Television Wildlife Documentaries’:
This article examines British television wildlife documentaries in order to outline the ways in which limited representations of animal behaviour recur. It focuses on representations of animal sexuality, monogamy and parenthood, and suggests that how such activities are repeatedly represented draw on normalised human notions of such behaviour… It is argued that how animals are represented in such documentaries matters, partly because normalised discourses must be drawn on in order for programmes to make sense of the behaviour they present, but mainly because animal behaviour is commonly used as evidence for ‘natural’ forms of human behaviour.
If only Bill’s beetles had both happened to have been male, the BBC’s gross invasion of their privacy would have been completely acceptable in the name of undermining cisheteronormative cisheterohegemony amongst the audience, then!
Amongst several other extremely bizarre-sounding papers, Mr. Mills has also written a learned discourse exploring potential anti-pig racism in old episodes of Doctor Who featuring evil aliens of stereotypically porcine appearance, and another revisionist-sounding piece entitled ‘Jaws: From the Shark’s Point of View’. Far from being an ordinary humble academic scribe, is Mr. Mills secretly also the head of PETA or something? Actually, he seems to have mixed feelings about the charity himself, yet does appear to share the group’s apparent overall goal of extending weird Leftist intersectionality dogma outwards into the animal world, at least to judge by this 2010 comment he placed online about an article criticising some of the charity’s sillier stunts:
The most interesting difference between Mills and PETA, of course, is that, whilst Mills has in the past complained (in a creditably amused fashion, it must be said) of being misrepresented in the media, PETA’s whole PR strategy appears to be based on such a thing happening.
Pet Causes
Has PETA ever done anything useful? Yes, of course. But people of PETA’s broad intersectionalist mindset also appear to waste an awful lot of time doing things that are utterly pointless too, like worrying about the allegedly alarming ‘sexual ethics’ of wildlife documentaries or the highly ‘perverted’ phrase ‘ants in your pants’. Surely the group would be much better advised to stop all the strange woke posturing, attempts to hyperbolically link animals rights to racism, sexism and the ‘climate emergency’, and instead focus upon some real problems facing the planet’s fauna instead?
Honorably, for example, alongside all the manifest idiocy, PETA’s website also carries a campaign against cruel and outdated Islamic methods of halal slaughter of cattle – not very intersectional, but undoubtedly highly factual, for once. That kind of unpleasantness never used to have any place in Britain at all, but it certainly does now. Hating wooden animals as PETA do, maybe their next campaign should be against Trojan Horses, not carousel ones? I’m sure a friendly celebrity face like Morrissey would be happy to lend a hand.
Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Chinese are good – real good. The virus they leaked in late 2019 manged to work its way into sealed water quality samples taken in early 2019. Damn, that is good. And all with one BSL-4 laboratory.
The US has 100s of BSL-4 bioweapons research labs outsourced around the world and the Chinks have beaten them to it. No wonder the US is pissed.
In Brazil too, but those samples were tested using PCR and may just be false positives.
Aren’t they all?
Data acquired using PCR is worthless if it can’t be backed up with actual isolation of the virus in question.
Sean Penn’s turned batty
Penn plays the hard man on jabbing By Suzie Halewood
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/penn-plays-the-hard-man-on-jabbing/
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Hollywood’s whores all made their pact with the devil for success, now they are being called on to honour that pact.
http://fashiontribes.typepad.com/main/images/spenn_sink.jpg
Turned? He’s been batshit forever, hence he fits right in with Hollwierds abuse culture.
Big mystery is where all these pharmaceutical companies got there spike proteins from to manufacture the vaccines now in use within days of the Wuhan bat-lady issuing a description – did they derive from Chinese virus samples or were they synthetic?
They are synthetic. A gene sequence which apparently you can receive over the phone. Then generate on your computer. That is the technology.
There were no Chinese samples. There probably still isn’t.
His “reasoning” is absurd and doesn’t even bother to take in any of the evidence that this is a manufactured virus. Why will nobody come clean and simply say “We got it wrong”? Big money.
Any comment from experts working in the field has to be considered in the light of this basic truth:
“If the pandemic started as part of a lab leak, it had the potential to do to virology what Three Mile Island and Chernobyl did to nuclear science“.
Tucker: Why did they lie to us for so long
Why was he funding such a shoddy operation, not to mention he led the fake WHO inquiry which cleared them. On 28 October 2019 while the Military Games were opening in Wuhan the real military games were happening at Event 201 in NY (including souvenir Coronavirus cushion): something to treasure while economy melted and people died
https://www.ageofautism.com/2020/01/center-for-health-security-coronavirus-pandemic-event-201-highlight-video.html
If you have lots of RNA viruses floating around in a relatively small area alongside tools that accelerate viral evolution such as humanised mice, then chimeric recombination will happen at a faster rate.
As ever you only need to get one arrow past the shield.
From buying
Cheap
Chinese
Crap
Products
attention to detail and quality control seem to be weak spots… Applied to a Lab that studies animal virus DNA and i ask “what could go right”?
Recent CNN interview with Bill Gates:
Anderson Cooper:
“How important do you think it is to understand how this happened, how it started, I mean is that critical in terms of preventing it into the future?”
Bill Gates:
“No, the source isn’t gonna change the need for masks and vaccines and the need to have a very different regimen so that all countries could get on top of cases very quickly and be more like Australia.”
So the fund giver to gain of function research doesn’t want the origins exposed, doesn’t think it will be of any use, even though knowing specific gain of function attributes would surely be of colossal help to virologists trying to remedy Covid-19. He also doesn’t think the vaccine makers should have to release the full list of ingredients of their Frankenshots, which makes informed consent by any person impossible.
No, instead Bill Gates wants you injected, locked in your home and harassed by police and military.
There is no Sars-Cov-2, that’s the key these psychopaths want kept hidden, it’s the spike protein itself causing the issues, the protein alone causes the symptoms of Covid-19 and their (final) solution is to make every cell in your body manufacture the damned thing.
Ah Here’s the little boy Anderson with his Mother Gloria Vanderbilt (yes that one) under a dubious shrine.
Why call yourself Daily SCEPTIC if all you are going to do is back one narrative? The reality is that there is a lot of weight to several arguments, one of which is that all we had was flu season re-branded coupled with some extremely dodgy practices on the wards and in the nursing homes which caused deaths in certain areas where these practices were most employed. Denis Rancourt did a very interesting presentation about distribution of death for Doctors For Covid Ethics symposium link below.
It would be good to see some true scepticism, where all potential scenarios are investigated, one of which is that there is no novel virus and that the whole charade, from start to finish, has been completely false and based on nothing but deliberately engineered false positives via a transparently fraudulent PCR testing regime, and re-labelling of formerly common illnesses under a new banner covering all respiratory conditions and more. Interestingly, Reiner Fuellmich did an interview where it was confirmed that he has a whistleblower from PCR machine manufacturing who will testify in court that orders for thousands of PCR machines started coming in around 2017/8, totally out of the blue.
Scepticism demands investigation, not tr
PROF DENIS RANCOURT, DOCTORS FOR COVID ETHICS, DAY 1
https://www.bitchute.com/video/6HR0sDqvUx9i/
Here is the MHRA confirming the vaxxs are formulated from computer models:
EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH UK MHRA – Exposing the genomic sequence of SARSCov2
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/email-exchange-with-uk-mhra-exposing-the-genomic-sequence-of-sarscov2/
Confirmation that our immune system already knew the “novel” virus:
Doctors For Covid Ethics Symposium 7/30/21 – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2OJocjAu0ORG/
“contains various others insights” … ie whoppers.
And we’re meant to believe him now why?
Baric begins the interview by quashing the suggestion (made by Senator Rand Paul on the floor of the U.S. Senate) that he has ever created a “supervirus”. And later in the interview he states, “there’s really no strong and actionable data that argues that the virus was engineered”.
So Mr Baric, explain why your involvement in – part – US tax payer funded gain of function research with a Coronavirus purportedly occurring in Chinese bats, which allegedly leaped to humans but left no trial throughout China; explain how SARS COV 2 contains elements of genetic code that do not , apparently, appear in all other Coronaviruses; and explain how it became intra human transmissible just before it appears to have leaked?
I am keen to understand, dontcha know?
Perhaps “you would say that” to the statement in italics
Baric is NOT an expert…..he is a CORRUPT EVIL LIAR complicit in genocide
What I am certain of is the Chinese students brought it into Britain. I remember there were Chinese students on the bus February 2020 and soon after I had what I though was a very bad flu unable to stop coughing, obviously Whuflu before we were told about it
People in various parts of the UK Europe and USA were suffering from a covid-like illness from October 2019. I got it along with a bunch of others around December 2019. Some evidence from sewage and blood samples it was around even earlier.
One thing’s for certain sure, whatever happened we will never know.
These vile horror labs working on gain of function are, no doubt, ticking time bombs. But it’s not clear whether the Covid mania has an actual single virus released from Wuhan as its cause. No Covid 19 viral profile has been isolated, despite requests from labs.
All that was needed to create the power grab was to spread fear and censor contrary information, by whatever means necessary. That’s been done relentlessly, with the goal of getting the fake vaccine, the spike protein generating mRNA programme, into as many bodies as possible.
This way, the power hungry elites behind the co-ordinated Covid push don’t risk deadly blow back of a genuinely dangerous virus on themselves, but still attain the domination (and de-population) they crave.