Friday, June 27, 2008

The Day of the Bullies

June 26th, 2008

The Greanville Journal


By David Irving

• [RELATED ARTICLE: HE WHO SAYS SPECIESISM SAYS FASCISM]

Conservatively speaking, approximately 100 million vertebrates in the world are experimented upon annually by the animal research industry of which approximately 22 million animals belong to the United States. Most of the animals are killed after research. While the animal research industry has managed successfully to brain wash the public into thinking animal research consists primarily of medical research, that is not the case. A large portion of animal research takes place in the cosmetics industry, the military, the EPA, the FDA, private research laboratories for industrial use, animal food companies, and others.

As an example, hundreds of thousands of military experiments have been conducted on animals in the greatest secrecy at a cost to taxpayers of over 100 million dollars annually. The military shoots, blasts, burns, scalds, and poisons animals. It subjects them to radiation, nerve gas, mustard gas, breaks their bones, and tortures them in every conceivable manner like attaching cartons of mosquitoes to restrained monkeys and rabbits so that the mosquitoes will feed on them in mosquito virus tests. Animals don’t make war, but they are made to suffer the consequences of the brutal wars human beings wage.

The March of Dimes is famous for experiments in which their researchers sewed the eyelids of kittens shut for a year in visual development tests before killing them. The visual development they claimed to study occurs in cats after birth while it occurs in humans before birth so that the tests were meaningless. The March of Dimes has also conducted research funded by tobacco companies to show that nicotine had beneficial effects. Research at the March of Dimes has also included implanting electric pumps into the backs of pregnant rats to inject them with nicotine and cocaine even though the hazards of smoking and cocaine to human babies is well known. Other addiction testing has been done by university researchers like Ron Woods who locked baboons in refrigerators filled with cocaine smoke in drug addition studies. The subject of how unjust it is, not to mention immoral and decadent, to experiment upon animals to try to solve the addiction problems human beings have created for themselves is never considered. That includes Columbia University where researchers have repeatedly operated on baboons and their babies in utero to measure the flow of nicotine through the umbilical chord.

The IAMS pet food company also engages in animal research projects. Their research has included confining dogs and cats in small, barren cages for as long as six years in which the dogs were debarked by cutting their vocal chords and then forced to endure painful surgery in which their gums were repeatedly cut and sutured to implant gingivitis, though gingivitis could have been studied on dogs that had developed the condition normally.

The cosmetics industry is another giant in the world of animal research. Procter and Gamble, for example, tests cosmetics for irritancy by locking rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, ferrets and other animals into restraining devices and then applying burning chemicals to their eyes and shaved portions of their skin. This is done without sedation or pain killers and causes excruciating pain. Some of the animals strain so forcefully against their restraints in these tests that they actually break their backs trying to escape. Those that survive are put through additional tests until they are finally killed. When chemicals are dripped into the eyes of these animals, it is called the Draize Test, and many in the medical community agree it is useless and unnecessary. More than 600 other companies produce the same kind of products that Proctor and Gamble makes without resorting to animal testing. Donated corneas to which chemicals may be applied and human skin cultures for irritancy testing are also available as alternatives to these animal testing procedures and are less expensive. However, Procter and Gamble refuses to abandon this senseless research because it does not want to admit it is wrong. The FDA continues to approve it. All so that we can have better kitchen products, better make-up, mascara, and all those other necessities Procter and Gamble makes.

None of this research discussed we’ve been discussing takes curiosity research into account, for example, subjecting restrained primates to a continuous three hour-long studio-generated sound ten decibels louder than a shotgun blast, a research project conducted at New York University.

The above research does not take into account the abuse of animals by supposedly legitimate medical researchers that continuously comes to light year after year after year as, for example, at Huntingdon Laboratories in England where researchers were photographed hitting puppies, shouting at them, simulating sex acts with them, and dissecting what appeared to be a live monkey. As reported by a whistleblower at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was able to back most of her charges with 59 videotapes in tests for alcohol, dopamine, and nicotine, rodents were infected with oversized tumors so large the animals could hardly carry them around and some of the tumors ulcerated and burst; a researcher broke the necks of rats to get rid of those for which she had no need; rodents have been packed together under such crowded conditions that they suffocated to death and resorted to cannibalism; mice with untended teeth grew so long that they could not eat and some of them starved to death; a researcher jokingly held up a tiny white mouse and said, “Say Bye, bye,” and then beheaded her with a pair of scissors; rats screamed when being beheaded with scissors without anesthesia or numbing agents; and researchers have amputated the toes of rodents for identification purposes.

The animal industry is a huge, parasitic gravy train dependent upon mass brain washing of the public through continuous public relations efforts and 100 million innocent creatures subjected to enslavement and torture by human beings. The abuse and exploitation of animals in the world today is representative of a primitive reliance on the worst instincts of human beings.

We are not alone in this opinion. Some of the most remarkable human beings have expressed the very same sentiments:

I have developed a deep respect for animals. I consider them fellow living creatures with certain rights that should not be violated any more than those of humans. – Jimmy Stewart

It’s a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done. – Harriet Beecher Stowe

…when we removed the body (of his cagemate) to the operation room, the other chimp wept bitterly and was inconsolable for days. The incident made a deep impression on me. I vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures. – Dr. Christian Barnard (Founder of Physicians for Responsible Medicine)

I believe I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of enmity without looking further. — Mark Twain

Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character. – George Bernard Shaw

To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than the life of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. – Mahatma Gandhi

It is our duty to share and maintain life. Reverence concerning all life is the greatest commandment in its most elementary form. Or expressed in negative terms: “Though shalt not kill.” We take this prohibition so lightly, thoughtlessly plucking a flower, thoughtlessly stepping on a poor insect, thoughtlessly, in terrible blindness because everything takes its revenge, disregarding the suffering and lives of our fellow men, sacrificing them to trivial earthly goals.

Reverence for life comprises the whole ethic of love in its deepest and highest sense. It is the source of constant renewal for the individual and for mankind. – Albert Schweitzer

…the poor beetle, that we tread upon, In corporal sufferance finds a pang as great

As when a giant dies. – William Shakespeare

This is what happens with the Draize test. I hope they’re proud of themselves. (Photo: PETA)

No wonder Schopenhaurer wrote what he wrote!

David Irving is a Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude graduate of Columbia University, class of 1980, School of General Studies. He subsequently obtained his Masters in Music Composition at Columbia and founded the new music organization Phoenix in New York City.

http://www.bestcyrano.org/cyrano/?p=568#more-568

************************************************************

When Horses Romp the Sun Also Shines

Thomas Paine's Corner

vivisection2

“It is not difficult to understand that after Descartes vivisection increased. It has only been about four centuries now since he postulated his mechanistic universe that in effect reversed the medieval view that all living creatures had souls, reserving that capacity only for our own exalted species. Animals, like nature, being nothing more than part of the machinery, hence soulless and without consciousness, could be exploited at will….”

by David Irving

6/25/08

Over the past decade articles and investigations by a small but determined new breed of scientists have pried the barn door open yet wider in an effort to show an old guard of scientists and a public used to old guard thinking that yes, animals do have consciousness. It seems like it shall not be long before all the horses within the barn are racing through the ever widening doorway to the beckoning pastures beyond. The old guard shakes its head in dismay. The farmer spits in the dust. “Gol’ durn critters,” he says. “Practically ran me over after all I did for ‘em.”

Meanwhile, those who belong to the old guard will continue to kick the dog, just as they have done since the days of Descartes, secure and nestled round with deeply held scientific views that the victim lacks consciousness. Therefore, how could it suffer? Or, even if it did, what matter? After all, didn’t Descartes, a vivisectionist, kick his? Well, if he didn’t, he should have since it was his followers who gave us permission to kick ours, maintaining that a dog no more felt pain when kicked than an organ did when a key was depressed. If that didn’t satisfy inquiring minds, just how nitpicking was a scientist supposed to be, anyway?

It is not difficult to understand that after Descartes vivisection increased. It has only been about four centuries now since he postulated his mechanistic universe that in effect reversed the medieval view that all living creatures had souls, reserving that capacity only for our own exalted species. Animals, like nature, being nothing more than part of the machinery, hence soulless and without consciousness, could be exploited at will. Today, if the horses had not been goaded on by a bunch of ornery upstarts and were not suddenly pawing at the earth, clamping at the bit and pressing at the barn gate, the old guard could contentedly go on its merry way kicking the dog for a few centuries more, adjusting that oval portrait of Descartes on the wall when necessary to make sure it stays straight. Throw in a few inevitable primates along the way, and don’t forget the cats, mice, frogs, iguanas, aardvarks and every other creature you can name. Give them a few whacks, too, for good measure. Don’t worry. The ready cop-out that the scientific method can’t be applied to subjective data like what an animal feels is always present as a defense. Add science’s own subjective insistence that animals lack consciousness and apply as needed.

“Where do they get this stuff, anyway?” do you ask. “Out of a hat?”

“No, out of a vision Descartes had which he attributed to the Mother of God!”

“What!? You’ve got to be kidding! You’re telling me that the foundation for our theory that animals lack consciousness is a religious vision by Descartes?”

“Don’t look at me. It wasn’t my dream.”

“Isn’t that rather unscientific not to mention frivolous?”

“Well, you can’t have everything.”

But forget Descartes for the moment. Just pass the next government grant this way. The taxpayers won’t notice. This barn needs more financing and maybe we can patch up the door too.

On the other hand, plain practical people who don’t need an explanation to realize the object in the middle of their face is indeed a nose, or, for that matter, what a nose does, understand and always have that animals have consciousness no matter how much Descartes kicked the dog – or if not his, some dog someplace, his neighbor’s maybe, it couldn’t have mattered much. There must have been a dog around someplace to kick. Even more outrageous, these simple minded folk besides contemplating their noses, and who knows what other parts of their anatomy, claim they know that the ongoing reluctance by science to seriously investigate animal consciousness is nothing more than a reluctance to acknowledge centuries of mistreatment of defenseless creatures by science researchers as well as a desire to protect future jobs for scientists in the multibillion dollar animal research industry. Now how’s that for some upstartery!

If some scientists are offended by this charge, let the scientific method begin. The excuse that the subject can’t be investigated without resorting to unacceptable inferential and indirect evidence does not qualify since science does the same with shiny, bright theories about neutrinos, the Big Bang, and other favored kids on the block like human evolution, for instance. An investigation would not only lead us to a clearer understanding about animal consciousness, it would call science to account for its centuries old failure to seriously examine its reliance on the thoroughly unscientific theory that animals do not possess consciousness. A public hungry for scientific integrity and appalled by science’s acquiescence to the powers of the subjective, all protestations notwithstanding, would all too eagerly await the results. Let the debate begin.

But that is the stuff that dreams are made of. An old guard that senses quite well that the outcome of such an examination could mean serious damage to its credibility is not likely to show much interest.

Never mind. A new breed of scientists is emerging and making its voice heard. There the dream lives. They do not hesitate to manipulate what is in the middle of their face with their fingers and realize that it is indeed a nose. Already we hear them declaring, “Behold, a nose is a nose is a nose.”

But what about those who continue to cling to the dusty coattails of Descartes? Well, it looks like its curtains for them, those crusty ol’ dog kickers. The horse is out of the barn now. With all the horses beginning to run wildly in every direction leaping and snorting for pure joy that old farmer is never gonna get them back in the barn – not that a consciousless animal could experience joy, mind you, in spite of every dog keeper’s experience to the contrary who has ever taken his or her dog for a romp in a field of fresh and fluffy snow.

Belatedly, they’ll look back, that old guard, always emanating that unremitting self-assured sense of being ever right and never wrong.

“Hey, you know what?” they’ll reminisce. “When we kicked that dog and it yelped, that was real pain it felt. Guess it musta had actual feeling after all, huh? Guess that means it had consciousness. Can you get over that? How’d it ever take us four centuries to figure that out? You don’t suppose we just kinda ignored applying the scientific method all those years now, do ya? Maybe we just never understood what the scientific method really meant – ‘cept, course, when we wanted to.”

Then when the poets begin to weigh in –If you blow on a cat’s nose, does it know you’ve blown on it? Ecco uomo! Ecco animale!

David Irving is a Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude graduate of Columbia University, class of 1980, School of General Studies. He subsequently obtained his Masters in Music Composition at Columbia and founded the new music organization Phoenix in New York City.

http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=766#more-766

No comments:

Post a Comment