• "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." Samuel Adams
  • Legalize It

  • ______________________
  • Flex Your Rights

  • ______________________
  • Fully Informed Jury Association

  • ______________________
  • ______________________
  • ______________________
  • ______________________
  • Advertisements

Archive for July, 2012

Animal “Rights” and the New Man Haters

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on July 22, 2012

By Edwin Locke, Ph.D.

 Recently a sixth grade student threatened to bomb the headquarters of a prominent corporation, the Gillette Company. Gillette’s “crime”? The use of animals to test the safety of their products. This student’s role models have not been so hesitant. In the name of so-called “animal rights,” terrorists have committed hundreds of violent crimes. They have vandalized or fire bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North America. The animal “rights” movement, however, is not about the humane treatment of animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.

 According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or leather shoes, and to use animals in research—even if it would lead to cures for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: “Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

How do the animal “rights” advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single—invalid—syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man’s rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

 Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man’s right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty—which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men—free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.

None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.

 Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical force. To claim that man’s use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves—a flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for them—at our expense.

The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal “rights” advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: “Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth”; “I do not believe that a human being has a right to life”; “I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals.” These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.

The animal “rights” terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind’s destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.

 There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man’s right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.



Posted in GAMECOCK ENEMIES | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by gamecocksunlimited on July 20, 2012

This has nothing to do with Gamecocks or does it. Was just sitting thanking about what is and has been done to our freedoms and our country. I thank this sums up a lot of whats going on


Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy…

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent
government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following
brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for
each of the planks. From comparison it’s clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are…

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State “income” taxes. We call it “paying your fair share”.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public “law” 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of “terrorists” and those who speak out or write against the “government” (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc…).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks
are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver’s licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read “controlled or subsidized” rather than
“owned”… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two “income” family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920′s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647,
11731 (ten regions) and Public “law” 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call ‘public’ schools, but are actually Government force-tax-funded schools ” Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based “Education” . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like “majority rules”, and “pay your fair share”. WHERE are the words “fair share” in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is “fair share” even suggested !! The philosophical concept of “fair share” comes from the Communist maxim, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. … America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC … Teaching ourselves and others how to “fish” to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be “needy”… Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? … By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these
slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America… KNOW YOUR ENEMY …Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Some Real Facts About The Gamecock

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on July 19, 2012

The Real Facts About Cockfighting

Myth #1: Many believe that chickens are “trained” or “taught” to fight through various methods.

Fact: Chickens cannot be “trained” to fight nor “taught” not to fight. There are over 100 different breeds of chickens that will fight and many of those breeds will do so instinctively, unto death!

Myth #2: People who raise Game Chickens will start “training” them, as soon as possible.

Fact: As mentioned chickens cannot be “trained” for combat. It is either a specific trait of their genetic makeup and a natural born instinct, or it is not, and so this behavior will not be manifested. In all cases however, due to hormonal influences at sexual maturity (around 6-8 months), all roosters will begin chasing hens. At this time their own natural instincts for domination begin to flourish. This is a time when a rooster is more concerned with proving his virility, than he is in even feeding himself! This is a process only nature can dictate. Gamefowl breeders can’t accelerate this process, nor “train” a rooster to become “dominant.”

Myth #3: There is no need to fight them, why not just raise them without combat?

Fact: This is not an impossible task, but certainly not an “advisable” route, for anyone interested in MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF A BLOODLINE! You can raise Gamefowl and never fight them. However, without that “Test” you risk the compound error of allowing inferior specimens to reproduce. This not only weakens the genetic pool overall, but also encourages a downward spiral in the general health, fitness and survivability of future generations within that family line. Now as mentioned, it is possible to keep Gamecocks from fighting, and here’s how to do it: 1. As they reach the age of maturity you must separate all males, as they cannot remain together after this point or they will kill each other. 2. Females may be kept together but never separated then reintroduced. This is because Game Hens have many of the same genetic traits as the roosters do. Though they are tamer and somewhat less aggressive, game hens will still very often fight with any new hen they are exposed to. And yes, this can often even be to their deaths!

Myth #4: Instead of being fought, they could be raised on farms for meat and eggs, just like other chickens.

Fact: Not possible. These are not ordinary “domestic” chickens, but rather an ancient and more genetically “natural” strain then today’s “Broilers or Layers,” and so Gamefowl cannot be raised or housed the same manner as their domesticated cousins. Currently there are zero egg and/or meat producing companies using Gamefowl in this way. As their application for these purposes cannot be accomplished “cost effectively.”

Myth #5: Gamefowl left free will learn to live together without fighting.

Fact: This is exactly WRONG! A false belief and myth created by Animal Rights “Theorists” with NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OR EDUCATION IN POULTRY BREEDING OR SCIENCE! PeTA (People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the HSUS (Humane Society of the United   States) are notorious for perpetuating this type of fallacy. However, a few years ago when PETA tried it with over 300 Gamefowl chickens. The result was a lot of dead chickens with the ones surviving being so mangled by one another, they were put to death by these “experts,” as well! PeTA just did not want to take on the responsibility for caring for them separately as they require!

Myth #6: The owners of Gamefowl find it necessary to abuse their chickens by hitting, kicking or torturing them in order to make them “mean.”

Fact: Nothing could be FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! If you kick or hit a Gamecock you will turn him into a man hater that would rather fight YOU, than another rooster. Think about it. If a person shows chickens with either a razor sharp knife or a gaff attached to their chickens legs, is he going to want one of those roosters to be carrying a “grudge” against him? No, a Cocker has to handle a rooster several times during a match and he sure doesn’t want to handle a rooster that either resents or fears him. Not a chance! As a matter of fact, before a match the roosters are often just as calm and gentle with their owners as a parakeet, or favorite pet Cockatoo. By nature, roosters usually only hate OTHER ROOSTERS!

Myth #7: Fighting roosters are abused and cruelly cared for.

Fact: Gamefowl are some of the most pampered creatures on earth. Just one visit with a Gamefowl Breeder would convince you that Gamefowl have superior conditions, nutrition and care to that of any other species of poultry! You might literally be amazed by the individual care given to every single chicken. In many cases these birds probably receive better treatment than most other people’s beloved pets!

Myth #8: Metal “spurs” aren’t natural for a rooster so attaching them for fighting, is cruel.

Fact: Roosters grow a natural spur on their legs and they can be, and often are fought only using those alone. However, this method of “Naked Heel” fighting is actually considered a more inhumane way of fighting these warriors by many Cockers. Why? Well, because a natural spur (averaging 3 inches long), will do a a great deal of damage, however a death can take considerably longer than with steel spurs. In the natural spur, an average fight might be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 hours in length. In the past some have gone on as long as 16 hours before a death occurred. (Please note, the chickens determined the length of these fights, not the spectators.) So, it seems that in reality the roosters are definitely much more inhumane to each other, than any human sponsors would ever be!

Myth #9: Fighting roosters eventually stop fighting when they get tired but are “forced” to continue. I have seen the handlers keep picking them up to get them to start fighting again.

Fact: Roosters can become exhausted during a match. Therefore, it is natural for them to stop struggling for short periods of time in order to catch their breath. However, this in NO WAY indicates surrender, defeat or submission! Because, as soon as he sees the other rooster again, he will try to hit him. This behavior will continue until either he or his opponent is dead. Roosters are never “forced” to fight. It’s not only “impossible” but totally contrary to a Cocker’s basic philosophy. A Cockfighter would NEVER want a chicken he needed to encourage to stay in a fight. A bird like that is totally useless to the Cocker for anything else but STEW! However, a rooster may be picked up several times during a match, but only to provide care, comfort and rest, not because the rooster wanted to “quit!” After all, when two roosters are put together and one will not peck the other? The match is OVER!!! (BTW….Often, fights are not even to the death, either!)

Myth #10: There has to be a better life for them than fighting?

Fact: NO! In fact, the ancient instincts built into these chickens are so powerfully manifest in their everyday behaviors, that only by DENYING them the ability to act out their own need to establish dominance, do we treat them “inhumanely.” It is the denial of their NATURAL INSTINCTS that constitutes the GREATEST CRUELTY OF ALL!!

Myth #11: gamecocks are bred to make them as aggressive as possible. The ones that are not aggressive enough are culled.

Fact: Gamecocks have been bred for 10,000 years to maintain the natural genetic trates displayed by their wild cousins, the Wild Red Jungle Fowl…

“A certain amount of aggression between chickens is normal and chickens from different genetic strains or breeds do show different levels of aggression; for example commercial Broiler- Layer types do show much less male to male aggression than game-type roosters, However male to female and male to male aggression is much more pronounced in the broiler breeder roosters. In addition to animal welfare concerns associated with hen injury and mortality, rising levels of aggressiveness by broiler breeder males present several problems for producers, relating to management and to profitability:

1. Hens become fearful of aggressive roosters and avoid them by remaining on the raised slatted areas of the house. As a result, flock fertility can decrease dramatically.

2. Avoidance of roosters by hens exacerbates the problem so that when hens move off the slats and into the scratch areas, groups of roosters “mob” and attempt to mate with them. During these forced mating attempts, hens are injured, and sometimes killed.

3. Hen productivity is likely to be reduced as a result of stress and injuries due to avoidance of aggressive roosters.

4.Injured hens are more prone to infection and disease, since their wounds quickly become contaminated. This can make them more likely to be condemned by processing plants.

Sorce: Animal Welfare Dilemma of Broiler Breeder Aggressiveness by Suzanne T. Millman, Ph.D.”

Posted in GAMECOCK ACTIVISM | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Hitler’s Animal Rights Campaign

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on July 6, 2012

Summary: The Following is an essay that takes aim at the Animal “Rights” Movement refuting fallacious claims advanced by them. It’s purpose on this site is to demonstrate yet another glaring example that Hitler and the Nazis were leftist.

The Implications of Nazi Animal Protection

By: Martin G. Hulsey

On Usenet, it is generally considered bad form to bring up Nazi Germany in the context of any discussion. This perhaps results from the tendency of some participants to equate their opponents with Nazis in lieu of providing rational arguments.

In various fora, we have seen arguments suggesting that Adolph Hitler was a vegetarian. I have seen this suggested numerous times, and, understandably, it usually results in shrill responses from both vegetarians and animal “rights” activists. I have made attempts to investigate these claims, and I have been only marginally successful. It does seem that, at least, Hitler was not a devout vegetarian, if it is appropriate to classify him as such. This brings up the question of what properly justifies that classification.

There seems to be a lack of agreement even among self-styled vegetarians. Some call themselves pesco-vegetarians because they eat only fish. Others reject this notion. Curious and fascinating arguments have occurred in regarding the duration of time within which a person must refrain from meat consumption before being a “true” vegetarian. One participant sarcastically noted that even omnivores are vegetarian “between meals.” One participant in talk.politics.animals calls himself vegan, yet has admitted that he eats animal products from time to time. As an omnivore, I have little stake in what the consensus definition might be, but I submit that some degree of consistency should be achieved for the sake of argument. If Hitler is not properly classified as a vegetarian because he occasionally ate sausage or squab (assuming that was the case), what are we to make of the self-professed vegans who also backslide on occasions?

In my opinion, those who object to Hitler being classified as a vegetarian are taking the wrong approach. It is fallacious to suggest that one infamous person’s dietary habits reflect on the character of others who share those habits. One wonders why most vegetarians don’t offer that argument. I have noted on numerous occasions that vegetarians will offer the name of some famous vegetarian athlete, scholar, politician or musician as though this implies that dietary regimen is superior. Proponents of such arguments should realize that they are equally fallacious. Acceptance of such anecdotal evidence is a double-edged sword. That Paul McCartney, Leonardo DaVinci, etc. were or are vegetarian in no way implies that vegetarianism is a superior dietary regimen. To suggest otherwise is to make a fallacious appeal to authority.

Putting aside for a moment the veracity of calling Hitler a vegetarian, let us consider some claims that have been made to that effect. Sociologists Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax wrote a very interesting article (Anthrozoos 5(1):6-31; 1992) that describes the familiar-sounding rhetoric that leading Nazis used to support vegetarianism. For example:

“On one romantic date, his female companion ordered sausage, at which Hitler looked disgusted and said: ‘Go ahead and have it, but I don’t understand why you want it. I didn’t think you wanted to devour a corpse… the flesh of dead animals. Cadavers!'”

This is a strange declaration for a man who some claim, without direct evidence, to have a preference for sausage.

If Hitler’s date did have sausage, it might account for the counterclaim
cited by Hitler’s biographers (i.e., Rynn Berry) to the effect that He was not vegetarian. However, an account by Hitler’s chef that he prepared sausage “for Hitler” may be mistaken and misleading if the sausage was, in fact, consumed by Hitler’s female companions, as it obviously was on this one occasion.

Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, noted:

“The Fuhrer is deeply religous, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race… Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed. The Fuhrer is a convinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.”

Irrespective of whether Hitler, Goebbels or other leading Nazis were, in fact, devout vegetarians, their self-serving rhetoric, claiming the moral high ground, is consistent with that which has appeared from time to time on In that newsgroup, we have seen omnivores characterized as “barbarians,” “animal-killers,” “murderers,” and so forth. Clearly, many contemporary vegetarians regard themselves as ethically superior to omnivores.

Claims of ethical superiority are also a characteristic of the contemporary animal “rights” movement. One can hardly find publication from that movement that doesn’t beg the question of “cruelty” with respect to practices of research, sport or cuisine. The epithet “cruelty-free” as applied to cosmetics has become popular in AR circles, despite its questionable veracity. Of course, what constitutes cruelty is a subjective matter, and the practices proclaimed as cruel by animal “rights” activists are more often that not legal, despite the existence of laws prohibiting cruelty to animals.

Implicit in this preoccupation with being “cruelty-free” is that non-adherents are cruel. As such, the claim of ethical superiority is one indisputable parallel between the Nazi animal protectionists and the modern AR movement. For example, consider the claims of moral superiority and the references to Eastern philosophy that are prevalent in the following translation of a Nazi article that was kindly provided to me by a friend:

The following is a translation of document #186 in Medizin im Nationalsozialismus by Walter Wuttke-Groneberg (Rottenberg: Shwaebische Verlagsgesellschaft) 1982.The author of the book believes that this article demonstrated how the Nazi party would gain support by appealing to interest groups whose main concern were issues other than national politics. He also believes that the Nazi’s regarded these measures as progressive and he juxtaposes this “reform” with the medical research atrocities in concentration camps.

Translator’s remarks and literal German words in {}.

Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!

The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal protection!

The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the Reichswart, the official publication of the “union of patriotic Europeans”, the lead article “Protection and Rights {Recht} for the Animal”. National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual’s {italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals…

The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism. There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection, for which the words “cultural shame” do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a criminal activity.

Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler’s sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.

We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been betrayed! The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:

Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world, against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades, will be banned in the New Germany!

A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed vivisection with no exceptions!

The National Socialist German Workers’ Party { NSDAP } press release states:

“The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who, despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps.”

Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenseless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!

What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts for this exemplary civil deed!

Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: “He who is kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!” May this blessing fulfill the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is fulfilled!


*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent – thanks to the energetic initiative of our Peoples’ chancellor Adolph Hitler, for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.

From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.

Here we see a writer in a socialist publication explicitly declaring that non-human animals have “rights.” Given the absolute control of the press by the NSDAP, this constitutes an official proclamation.

In fairness, it should be noted that the proclaimed ban on vivisection was less than absolute in the entire Reich. Some German scientists continued to use animals rather than humans for research despite the threatened penalty. The “antivivisection” law that was actually passed was modeled after an existing British law that did not constitute an absolute ban, despite official proclamations to that effect.

Some might seem content to totally dismiss the phenomenon of Nazi animal protection as a propaganda maneuver, but Nazi animal protection ran far deeper than the proclaimed abolition of vivisection. Consider this excerpt from Arluke and Sax (op. cit., p. 9):

“The preoccupation with animal protection in Nazi Germany was evident in other social institutions and continued almost until the end of World War II. In 1934, the new government hosted an international conference on animal protection in Berlin. Over the speaker’s podium, surrounded by enormous swastikas, were the words “Entire epochs of love will be needed to repay animals for their value and service” (Meyer 1975). In1936 the German Society for Animal Psychology was founded, and in 1938 animal protection was accepted as a subject to be studied in German public schools and universities.”

Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.

Because the officially-proclaimed absolute ban on vivisection was never codified in the Reichstag, the claim that Germany’s ban on vivisection was, in part, a propaganda maneuver has some merit. However, this inconsistency provides yet another parallel to the contemporary animal “rights” movement. The prominent AR organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, spent (and is still spending) a large sum of money in a fruitless legal attempt to obtain control over the well-known Silver Spring Monkeys. One could argue that this money could have been better spent in other, less newsworthy efforts at animal protection. There are other well-known publicity antics. PETA’s penchant for pie-in-the-face publicity stunts has drawn criticism from other AR proponents. For example, Gary Francione was quoted as criticizing PETA for it’s “Three Stooges” approach to animal protection. Thus, like animal protectionist elements of the Third Reich, it seems that some components of the contemporary AR movement are, in part, highly motivated by considerations of public relations and propaganda.

Another point that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the inconsistent actions of the alleged “…friends of animals…” in Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 “liberated” rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal “sanctuary” for reasons of “overcrowding.” One wonders why a portion of their multi-million dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing for those animals.

There is considerable evidence of acceptance of animal “rights” by officials of the Third Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century. They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the “rights” of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish people.

It is not my purpose to equate contemporary animal “rights” activists with Nazis. Although there are clear parallels, there are distinctions as well.

However, whenever animal activists argue today that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentler society, it is perfectly appropriate to point out that the only modern civilization to officially embrace a philosophy of animal rights did not turn out to be more kind or more gentle.

Source: Hitler Historical Museum

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: