Introduction
We live in times when the voices of self-proclaimed “animal rights activists”, who suggest that it represents a highly immoral deed to conduct scientific experiments on animals, are growing ever-louder, even though that those that are opposed against animal testing do not seem to be in a big rush to stop exploiting the fruits of scientific progress, associated with such testing. In its turn, this betrays them as double-faced individuals, whose political and social activity derives out their bellyful idleness and corresponds to them being highly judgmental individuals, who seriously believe that it is up to them to define what is “moral” and what is “immoral”.
Main body
It is not by pure accident that “animal rights activists” consist predominantly of White Liberals with pierced noses, lips, and genitals, who despite their talent in finding new ways to “celebrate diversity”, lack the understanding of objective subtleties of hard science, as objective category, which exists beyond “good” and “evil”. These people think that it is appropriate, on their part, to apply labels of “Nazis” to anyone who would disagree with their point of view, during the process of “flower children” trying to make this world being more “tolerant”, by drinking gallons of organic coffee at Starbucks. However, given the fact that the majority of Americans perceive the “activists” as who they are – a bunch of mentally deviated individuals, the self-appointed guardians of animals’ welfare are often being left with no other choice but to engage in physical violence against those who dare to express their contempt with Liberal nonsense being jammed down citizens’ throats. In his article “Animal-Rights Militants Say They Put Bomb Under UCLA Scientist’s Car”, which can be found on the website of The Chronicle for Higher Education, Andrew Mytelka provides us with insight on the methods, “animal rights activists” resort to, to promote their views: “In another attempted attack on a UCLA professor by animal-rights extremists, federal and local authorities are investigating the placement of a bomb on Sunday under a car belonging to an eye researcher at the university. The explosive failed to detonate, according to today’s Los Angeles Times. The incident resembles one last summer, in which activists claimed to have tried to bomb the residence of another researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles” (Mytelka, 2007). And what, according to “lefties” justifies their tendency to engage in physical violence, on behalf of animals? The article “What’s Wrong With Testing on Animals?”, available on the web site of Global Action Network, provides us with the answer: “Every year, millions of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed in crude tests to evaluate the toxicity of consumer products and their ingredients… But the suffering and death of these animals are entirely unnecessary in the making of products like your shampoo, eye shadow, and toilet cleaner. No law requires animal testing of cosmetics or personal care and household cleaning products” (GAN, 2008). No law requires stores like Wal-Mart, to stock its industrial freezers with tons of freshly produced bacon (pigs’ “holocaust”), on weekly basis, yet it happens.
The reason for this is simple – the objective reality rarely corresponds to the wishful thinking of Liberal dreamers. As representatives of Earth’s dominant species, people are at liberty to treat animals in the way they consider necessary, simply because animals cannot effectively oppose homo sapiens. Do we like chicken meat? Then, we build chicken farms, so that we can have an unlimited supply of chickens and eggs. Do the rodents cause damage to our crops? Then we simply exterminate rodents in a wholesale manner. Do we think cats, dogs, and horses are useful? Then we create even more of these animals’ pedigrees, by subjecting them to crossbreeding. Do we need to design a medicinal cure for a particular disease? Then we use animals as objects of scientific experimentations because such experiments lay at the core of medicine as objective science. It would be much appropriate to conduct medicinal experiments on illegal Mexicans or Jamaican drug dealers, but then we would be having even more “bleeding hearts” across the nation, as a result. Whether “animal rights activists” like it or not, the practice of testing medicine on animals had helped to save the lives of millions of people. In his article, Matthew Hartfield’s article “Animal Testing: No Time for Hysteria” contains numerous referrals to the examples of animal testing yielding positive practical results: “The efficacy of penicillin, blood transfusions, vaccines or insulin, to name a few, was demonstrated via animal experiments. In the case of penicillin, mice were injected with a lethal dose of streptococci bacteria; half of them were further injected with penicillin. These were the only mice that survived. Penicillin has subsequently saved millions of lives worldwide” (Hartfield, 2008). The reason for Liberal “lefties” to be strongly preoccupied with artificially created fetish of “animal rights”, appears as having a strictly psychiatric nature. Given their judgmental attitudes towards the people who happen to have a different perspective on socio-political issues, as opposed to their own, Liberal whackos have a hard time finding soulmates. In its turn, this prompts them to increasingly rely on pets, as animals capable of providing their owners with companionship. As time goes by, “animal rights activists” grow to subconsciously associate all animals with pets. As a result, they naturally become discontent with the practice of testing on animals, without being able to realize that nowadays, pets are not being used as objects of scientific experiments. In his article “Animal Testing: Beyond the Protests, Instances of Mistreatment are Rare”, Tom Still says: “Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. At GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s London division, for example, only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats, and rabbits. Protesters may flash disturbing images of monkeys screaming in pain, but primates aren’t at the core of most animal research today” (Still, 2005). Therefore, if “animal rights activists” would want to do something useful, within a context of striving to combat cruelty against animals, they would be much better off picketing Chinese restaurants, owners of which are known for their tendency to skin cats and dogs, while serving pets’ meat as “chicken” or “beef” to unsuspecting White customers. This, of course, cannot be done in principle, because in time free from whining about the fate of “poor mice”, Liberal whackos also promote the concept of “multiculturalism”. Therefore, it is very doubtful whether “animal rights activists” are being concerned about the animals as much as they would like us to believe.
They simply cannot live without being allowed to whine about the “world’s injustices”, as their full-time occupation. This is the reason why they also cannot stop talking about the issue of “racism”. For them, it is like a skin rush – the more it is being scratched, the more it itches, and it is not the prospects of this rush being relieved, which prompts “lefties” to indulge in their politically correct rhetoric, but the fact that they derive pleasure out of the very process of scratching. The full extent of “animal rights activists’” affection towards the animals is being illustrated in the article “Cat-Eating Students Shooed off Facebook”, which is available on the website of The Copenhagen Post”: “Eating house pets in the name of animal welfare is a quick way to raise the hackles of not only animal rights groups, but also the online community, a group of journalism students in Århus have discovered. The group, all students at the Danish School of Journalism, had their Facebook accounts closed by the online community’s administrators after they uploaded pictures of themselves cooking and eating a cat” (The Copenhagen Post, 2008). These sickos had taken pictures of themselves cooking and eating the cat while having tears in their eyes (they felt sorry for the poor animal) – all in the name of protection of animals’ rights!. In its turn, this leaves no doubts as to the fact that neo-Liberalism is nothing but a form of mental illness, which is why the arguments of hysterical defenders of animal welfare cannot even be considered seriously – these people should have been checked into mental hospitals long ago, instead of being allowed to roam free, while promoting their craziness as the legitimate form of political activity. They should not even have the right to own pets – one can never be too sure of what do they do to the poor creatures.
“Animal rights activists” follow the footsteps of their spiritual ancestors, Christians, and Commies. Christians had succeeded in slaughtering millions of people as heretics, while never getting tired of praising the “good book” as such that promotes “tolerance”. Similarly, hook-nosed Communist commissars had succeeded in murdering millions of Russians, simply because they belonged to a wrong social class, during Russia being turned into a “workers’ paradise”. Today’s “animal rights activists,” think that it is OK to eat cats and dogs, while screaming bloody murder, over the “cruel” treatment of mice in the labs!. Rounding up these sickos behind the barbed wire, issuing them with shovels, and telling them to do something useful for a change, like helping farmers to scoop up manure, is the only way to deal with these people’s existential inadequateness. In his book “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”, Lyle H. Rossiter provides us with insight on what constitutes a spiritual foundation, upon which “animal rights activists” base their arguments: “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims (lab rodents), rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious” (Rossiter, p. 5).
There can be no doubt as to the fact that in civilized society, animals must enjoy a certain degree of protection, but this does not mean that experimentation of lad rodents should be banned nationwide, simply because “experts on tolerance” think that such practice is morally wrong. As we have stated earlier in this paper, such experiments cannot be morally wrong by definition, because of the objective nature of scientific notions. For example, at least 70% of today’s medicinal knowledge, as to people’s anatomy, psychology, and their reproductive capabilities, directly derives out of scientific data, obtained during the course inmates of Nazi’s concentration camps being subjected to various experiments, which often led to their death. Does it mean that we now have to ban this knowledge as “morally wrong”? It is important to understand that animals cannot have “rights” in principle, because the concept of political right implies that it was being taken, rather than given. For any normal individual, it would never occur to cruelly treat animals, not because animals have “rights”, but because mentally adequate people are simply incapable of deriving pleasure out of seeing animals suffer.
It appears that, despite their rhetoric, “animals rights activists” do not want to have the practice of experimentation on animals being delegitimized, as it would deprive them of one of their excuses to indulge in whining about “world’s injustices”, as the only activity in which they can excel. Nowadays, the experimentation on animals is not being practiced as widely as it used to be the case, even as recent as twenty years ago, due to groundbreaking discoveries in the field of genetics, which had taken place in recent years. In her article “Animal Testing is Both Cruel and Unnecessary”, Sharon Howe states: “Organisations such as the Dr. Hadwen Trust and the Humane Research Trust are funding vital research into all the major human diseases to replace painful procedures on animals. Cancer research projects use complex 3D human cell cultures and mathematical modeling to improve the targeting of radiation treatments, for example, while new generations of brain scanning techniques – some of them developed at Oxford – are providing far more relevant insights into neurological diseases like Parkinson’s than invasive operations on monkeys are ever likely to do” (Howe, p. 2006). Thus, it is natural for scientists to strive to find alternatives to experimentation on animals. However, once the practice of such experimentation is being banned, it will not be because of “animal rights activists” tendency to place explosives under the cars of their opponents, but simply as an objective consequence of empirical science reaching new heights. This is because it is the science and not the religious or Liberal morality that pushes forward cultural and scientific progress in this country. If biologists were given a green light to enjoy full freedom, within a context of them designing new experimentation techniques, there would be no animal testing anymore, as “animal rights activists” appear to be much more desirable objects for biological experimentation (especially in the field of psychiatry), then the poor rodents, on whose behalf the self-proclaimed guardians of public morality act.
Bibliography
Cat-Eating Students Shooed off Facebook. 2008. The Copenhagen Post Online. Web.
Howe, S. “Animal Testing is Both Cruel and Unnecessary”. 2006. The Independent. 2008. Web.
Hartfield, M. “Animal Testing: No Time for Hysteria”. 2008. The Journal. Web.
Mytelka, A. “Animal-Rights Militants Say They Put Bomb Under UCLA Scientist’s Car”. 2007. The Chronicle for Higher Education. 2008. Web.
Still, T. “Animal Testing: Beyond the Protests, Instances of Mistreatment are Rare”. 2005. WTN NEWS. 2008. Web.
Rossiter, L. (2006) “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness”, New York: Free World Books.