The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent.
This article includes graphic images some
readers may find disturbing.
FBI
AGENTS ARE devoting substantial
resources to a multistate hunt for two baby piglets that the
bureau believes are named Lucy and Ethel. The two piglets were removed over the
summer from the Circle Four Farm in Utah by animal rights activists who
had entered the Smithfield Foods-owned factory farm to film the brutal,
torturous conditions in which the pigs are bred in order to be
slaughtered.
While filming the conditions at the Smithfield
facility, activists saw the two ailing baby piglets laying on the ground,
visibly ill and near death, surrounded by the rotting corpses of dead
piglets. “One was swollen and barely able to stand; the other had been trampled
and was covered in blood,” said Wayne Hsiung of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE),
which filmed the facility and performed the rescue. Due to various illnesses,
he said, the piglets were unable to eat or digest food and were thus a fraction
of the normal weight for piglets their age.
Rather than leave the two piglets at Circle
Four Farm to wait for an imminent and painful death, the DxE activists decided
to rescue them. They carried them out of the pens where they had been suffering
and took them to an animal sanctuary to be treated and nursed back to health.
DxE photograph depicting piglets huddled up against
their mothers at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah. DxE says the
piglets were sick or starving.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
This single Smithfield Foods farm breeds and
then slaughters more than 1 million pigs each year. One of the odd aspects of
animal mistreatment in the U.S. is that species regarded as more intelligent
and emotionally complex — dogs, dolphins, cats, primates — generally
receive more public concern and more legal protection. Yet pigs – among the
planet’s most
intelligent, social, and emotionally complicated species, capable of great
joy, play, love, connection, suffering and pain, at least on a par with dogs —
receive almost no protections, and are subject to savage systematic abuse
by U.S. factory farms.
At Smithfield, like most industrial pig farms, the
abuse and torture primarily comes not from rogue employees violating company
procedures. Instead, the cruelty is inherent in the procedures themselves.
One of the most heinous industry-wide practices is one that DxE activists
encountered in abundance at Circle Four: gestational crating.
Where that technique
is used, pigs are placed in a crate made of iron bars that is the
exact length and width of their bodies, so they can do nothing for their entire
lives but stand on a concrete floor, never turn around, never see any outdoors,
never even see their tails, never move more than an inch. That was the
condition in which the activists found the rotting piglet corpses and the
two ailing piglets they rescued.
Piles of dead and rotting piglets are piled up
behind a sow, who is wedged into a crate so tightly that she cannot move away
from the mess at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Female pigs give birth in this condition. They
are put in so-called farrowing crates when they give birth, and their piglets
run underneath them to suckle and are often trampled to death. The sows
are bred repeatedly this way until their fertility declines, at which point
they are slaughtered and turned into meat.
The pigs are so desperate to get out of their crates
that they often spend weeks trying to bite through the iron bars until their
gums gush blood, bash their heads against the walls, and suffer a
disease in which their organs
end up mangled in the wrong places, from the sheer physical trauma of
trying to escape from a tiny space or from acute anxiety (called “organ
torsion”).
But in the U.S. states where factory farms actually
thrive, these devices continue to be widely used, which means a vast
majority of pigs in the U.S. are subjected to them. The suffering, pain,
and death these crates routinely cause were in ample
evidence at Smithfield Foods, as accounts, photos, and videos from DxE
demonstrate.
FBI
raids animal sanctuaries
Under normal circumstances, a large industrial
farming company such as
Smithfield Foods would never notice that two sick piglets of the
millions it breeds and then slaughters were missing. Nor would they care:
A sick and dying piglet has no commercial value to them.
Yet the rescue of these two particular piglets has
literally become a federal case — by all appearances, a matter of great
importance to the Department of Justice. On the last day of August, a six-car
armada of FBI agents in bulletproof vests, armed with search warrants,
descended upon two small shelters for abandoned farm animals: Ching Farm Rescue
in Riverton, Utah, and Luvin Arms in Erie, Colorado.
These sanctuaries have no connection to DxE or any
other rescue groups. They simply serve as a shelter for sick, abandoned, or
otherwise injured animals. Run by a small staff and a team of
animal-loving volunteers, they are open to the public to teach about farm
animals.
The attachments to the search warrants specified
that the FBI agents could take “DNA samples (blood, hair follicles or ear
clippings) to be seized from swine with the following characteristics: I.
Pink/white coloring; II. Docked tails; III. Approximately 5 to 9 months in
age; IV. Any swine with a hole in right ear.”
The FBI agents searched the premises of both
shelters. They demanded DNA samples of two piglets they said were named Lucy
and Ethel, in order to determine whether they were the two ailing piglets
who had been rescued weeks earlier from Smithfield.
A representative of Luvin Arms, who insisted on
anonymity due to fear of the pending criminal investigation, described the
events. The FBI agents ordered staff and volunteers to stay away from the
animals and then approached the piglets. To obtain the DNA samples, the state
veterinarians accompanying the FBI used a snare to pressurize the piglet’s
snout, thus immobilizing her in pain and fear, and then cut off close
to two inches of the piglet’s ear.
The piglet’s pain was so severe, and her
screams so piercing, that the sanctuary’s staff members screamed and cried.
Even the FBI agents were so sufficiently disturbed by the resulting trauma,
that they directed the veterinarians not to subject the second piglet to
the procedure. The sanctuary representative recounted that the piglet who had
part of her ear removed spent weeks depressed and scared, barely moving or
eating, and still has not fully recovered. The FBI “receipt” given to the
sanctuaries shows they took DNA samples “from swine.”
Several volunteers at one of the raided animal
shelters said they were followed back to their homes by FBI agents, who
dramatically questioned them in front of family members and neighbors. And
there is even reason to believe that the bureau has been surveilling the
activists’ private communications regarding the rescue of this piglet duo.
The FBI specified as part of its search that it was
seeking DNA samples from piglets they said were named “Lucy” and “Ethel.” But
those were not the names the activists used when publicly discussing the rescue
of the two piglets. In their videos about the rescue, they called the pair
“Lily” and “Lizzie.” Lucy and Ethel were code names the activists used
internally, suggesting that agents were surveilling the activists’
communications — either electronically or through informants — in an effort to
find the two piglets and build a criminal case against the group.
Subsequent events confirmed that this show of
FBI force was designed to intimidate the sanctuaries, which played no role in
the rescue. Weeks after the FBI’s execution of the two search warrants,
Luvin Arms — in the midst of an interview with The Intercept — received a
telephone call from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, claiming the agency had
received “a complaint” that the sanctuary lacked the legally required licenses
for animal shelters that are open to the public. “We had never had an FBI visit
or a USDA call about licenses, and now suddenly, within weeks, both happened,”
the sanctuary representative said.
A piglet that was ill and close to death at
Smithfield recovers as she is cared for after being rescued.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Retaliation
for exposing cruel treatment
What has vested these two piglets with such
importance to the FBI is that their rescue is now part of what has become an
increasingly visible public campaign by DxE and other activists to highlight
the barbaric suffering and abuse that animals endure on farms like Circle
Four. Obviously, the FBI and Smithfield — the nation’s largest industrial
farm corporation — don’t really care about the missing piglets they
are searching for. What they care about is the efficacy of a political
campaign intent on showing the public how animals are abused at factory
farms, and they are determined to intimidate those responsible.
Deterring such campaigns and intimidating the
activists behind them is, manifestly, the only goal here. What made this piglet
rescue particularly intolerable was an article that appeared
in the New York Times days after the rescue, which touted the use
of virtual reality technology by animal rights activists to allow the public to
immerse in the full experience of seeing what takes place in these companies’
farms. The article featured a photograph of the DxE activists rescuing the
piglets from the Smithfield farm:
The Times article was published July 6.
The search warrant against the sanctuaries was obtained the following month, in
mid-August, and then executed on August 31. In the interim, the piglets had
become stars of a clearly effective campaign against Smithfield Foods.
In response to questions from The Intercept, Smithfield
insisted that it does not abuse its animals. But, as is typical
for factory farms, the company offered little more then generalized
denials, accompanied by vague accusations that the videos and photos the
activists took are somehow “distorted.”
After they rescued the two piglets, the DxE
activists did not try to hide what they had done: They did the opposite.
They used a tactic known as “open rescue,” the purpose of which is to
publicly detail what has been done to help the public understand the true
nature of the abuses.
The activists wrote about the rescue in social media
postings that went viral, detailing the horrific conditions they witnessed at
Smithfield and describing the suffering of the piglets. They posted
videos to Facebook and YouTube that they filmed of the farm and
the rescue as it happened, with other videos showing Lily and Lizzie being
treated at the sanctuaries and growing into happy, playful, healthy
adolescents.
Plainly, the “crime” of these activists that has
galvanized the FBI is not the “theft” of two dying piglets; it is political
activism and investigative journalism, which exposes the cruelty and abuse at
the heart of this powerful industry.
In response to a few media reports on the FBI
raids at the sanctuaries, bureau spokesperson Sandra Barker told
the Washington Post: “I can say that we were at the two locations
conducting court-authorized activity related to an ongoing investigation.
Because it’s ongoing, I’m not able to provide any more details at this time.”
To an industry feeling endangered by growing
public disgust over conditions at industrial farms — driven by scandals within
the meat, pork, and poultry sectors — Lily and Lizzie are political and
journalistic threats. Animals like them are vital for enabling animal rights
activists to demonstrate to the public in a visceral, personalized way that
this industry generates massive profit by monstrously and unnecessarily
torturing living beings who are emotionally complex and experience great
suffering.
Rescued piglets Lizzie and Lily.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Government power
abused to intimidate and punish activists
The Justice Department’s grave attention to a case
of two missing piglets reflects how vigilantly the U.S. government uses extreme
measures to protect the agricultural industry — not from unjust economic loss,
violent crime, or theft, but from political embarrassment and accurate
reporting that damages the industry’s reputation.
A sweeping framework of draconian laws — designed to
shield the industry from criticism and deter and punish its critics — has been
enacted across the country by federal and state legislatures that are captive
to the industry’s high-paid lobbyists. The most notorious of these
measures are the “ag-gag” laws, which make publishing videos of farm
conditions taken as part of undercover operations a felony, punishable by years
in prison.
Though many courts, including most
recently a federal court in Utah, have struck down these laws as an
unconstitutional assault on speech and press freedoms, they continue to be used
in numerous states to harass and, in some cases, prosecute animal rights
activists. As the Times article notes, these ag-gag laws are one reason
activists are forced to turn to virtual reality: to show what really happens
inside industrial farms without running the risk of prosecution.
Many mother pigs had nipples that were torn into
bloody shreds from feeding starving piglets.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Even more extreme and menacing is the federal Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act. As I described
previously when reporting on the arrest of two young activists —
who faced 10 years in prison for freeing minks from farm cages before the
animals could be sliced to death and turned into luxury coats — nonviolent
animal rights activists are often designated as “terrorists” under the AETA and
are treated in the court system as such, even when no human beings are hurt and
the economic loss is minimal:
As is typical for lobbyist and industry-supported
bills, the AETA passed with overwhelming bipartisan support (its two
prime Senate sponsors were James Inhofe, R-Okla., and Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif.) and then was signed into law by George W. Bush.
This “terrorism” law is
violated if one “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or
personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise …
for the purpose of damaging or interfering with” its operations. If you do that
— and note that only “damage to property” but not to humans is required — then
you are guilty of “domestic terrorism” under the law.
Prior to the 2006 enactment of the AETA, animal
rights activism that damaged property was already illegal under a 1992
federal law, as well as various state laws, and subject to severe punishments.
The primary purpose of the new 2006 law was to expand the scope of criminal
offenses to include plainly protected forms of political protest, and to
heighten the legal punishments and intensify social condemnation by literally
labeling animal-rights activists as “domestic terrorists.”
The factory farm industry and its armies of
lobbyists wield great influence in the halls of federal and state power, while
animal rights activists wield virtually none. This imbalance has produced
increasingly oppressive laws, accompanied by massive law enforcement resources
devoted to punishing animal activists even for the most inconsequential
nonviolent infractions — as the FBI search warrant and raid in search of “Lucy
and Ethel” illustrates.
The U.S. government, of course, has always protected
and served the interests of industry. Beginning when most of the nation was fed
by small farms, federal agencies have been particularly protective of
agricultural industry. That loyalty has only intensified as family farms
have nearly disappeared, replaced by industrial factory farms where animals are
viewed purely as commodities, instruments for profit, and treated with
unconstrained cruelty.
Downed pigs languish in their own feces at
Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Lately, opposition is emerging from unusual places.
Utah federal judge Robert J. Shelby, an Obama appointee who is a lifelong
Republican, recently struck down the state’s ag-gag law on First Amendment
grounds, noting in
his ruling:
For as long as farmers have put food on American
tables, the government has endeavored to support and protect the agricultural
industry. … In short, governmental protection of the American agricultural
industry is not new, and has taken a variety of forms over the last two hundred
years. What is new, however, is the recent spate of state laws that have
assumed an altogether novel approach: restricting speech related to
agricultural operations.
As Shelby detailed, those ag-gag laws were not used
until activists began having success in showing the public the true extent of
cruelty that industrial farms impose on animals:
Nobody was ever charged under these [early ag-gag]
laws, and for nearly two decades no new ag-gag legislation was introduced. That
changed, however, after a series of high profile undercover investigations were
made public in the mid to late 2000s.
To name just a few, in 2007, an undercover
investigator at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in California filmed workers
forcing sick cows, many unable to walk, into the “kill box” by repeatedly
shocking them with electric prods, jabbing them in the eye, prodding them with
a forklift, and spraying water up their noses. A 2009 investigation at Hy-Line
Hatchery in Iowa revealed hundreds of thousands of unwanted day-old male chicks
being funneled by conveyor belt into a macerator to be ground up live.
That same year, undercover investigators at a
Vermont slaughterhouse operated by Bushway Packing obtained similarly gruesome
footage of days-old calves being kicked, dragged, and skinned alive. A few
years later, an undercover investigator at E6 Cattle Company in Texas filmed
workers beating cows on the head with hammers and pickaxes and leaving them to
die. And later that year, at Sparboe Farms in Iowa, undercover investigators
documented hens with gaping, untreated wounds laying eggs in cramped conditions
among decaying corpses.
The publication of these and other undercover videos
had devastating consequences for the agricultural facilities involved. The
videos led to boycotts of facilities by McDonald’s,Target, Sam’s Club, and
others. They led to bankruptcy and closure of facilities and criminal charges
against employees and owners. They led to statewide ballot initiatives banning
certain farming practices. And they led to the largest meat recall in United
States history, a facility’s entire two years’ worth of production. Over the
next three years, sixteen states introduced ag-gag legislation.
In other words, both the legislative process and law
enforcement agencies are being blatantly exploited — misused — to protect not
the property rights but the reputational interests of this industry. Having the
FBI — in the midst of real domestic terrorism threats, hurricane-ravaged
communities, and intricate corporate criminality — send agents around the
country to animal sanctuaries in search of DNA samples for two missing piglets
may seem like overkill to the point of being laughable. But it is entirely
unsurprising in the context of how law enforcement resources are used, and on
whose behalf.
A piglet at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in
Utah.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Smithfield
Food’s defenses
It makes sense that Smithfield Foods would be
petrified of the public learning of many of its practices. But in this
particular case, they are specifically trying to hide the pure evils of
gestational crates. This video, taken by an investigator with the Humane
Society in 2012, shows the widespread but hideous reality of gestational crates
at a Smithfield farm:
In response to the public
controversy over this practice, generated by activists filming what
was going on, Smithfield announced in 2012 that they would phase out
gestational crating in 10 years — by 2022. They then
claimed that by the end of 2017, they would transition completely to
“group housing systems.” But as the DxE videos show, gestation crates
are exactly what activists found in abundance when they visited Smithfield’s
Circle Four.
Indeed, when Wayne Hsiung and DxE visited Circle
Four over the summer, they saw no signs whatsoever of any construction or
reform efforts to move away from gestational crates, Hsiung told the Intercept.
As the videos show, Circle Four had thousands of pigs suffering in
such crates. That was where the activists found the two piglets, close to
death.
When Smithfield learned that The Intercept was
reporting on these issues, a spokesperson emailed a statement and
invited further questions. The statement claims that in response to DxE’s
reporting, Smithfield “immediately launched an investigation and completed a
third-party audit,” and “the audit results show no findings of animal
mistreatment.”
This is a typical industry tactic: When they claim,
as they almost always do, that their paid auditors discovered “no findings of
animal mistreatment,” what they mean is that there was no evidence that their
employees engaged in activities that corporate procedures explicitly prohibit
(such as beating the animals or administering electric shock).
But what the audit does not do is
ask whether the procedures themselves (such as gestational crating) are abusive
and thus constitute “mistreatment.” Smithfield failed to provide a
response to The Intercept’s follow-up questions about what it does and does not
mean when their auditors claim no “mistreatment” was discovered; the company
simply reiterated that “the animals observed on the farm by the audit team were
in good condition, appeared comfortable, free of clinical disease, and showed
no signs of fear or intimidation in the presence of people.” Simply review the
DxE video above, and the featured photos showing what they found at Circle
Four, to judge for yourself.
Cramped conditions lead to many pigs being trampled
to death at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
In its statement, Smithfield also accused the activists
who rescued the two piglets of “risk[ing] the life of the animals they stole
and the lives of the animals living on our farms by trespassing” — an odd claim
from a company that plans to slaughter all of those same animals. When
asked to specify how the activists endangered the lives of the sick
animals they rescued, Smithfield told The Intercept that “the video’s creators
violated Smithfield’s strict biosecurity policy, which prevents the spread of
disease on farms.” The statement added: “The piglets were not ‘extremely ill’
or ‘on the verge of death.’ These piglets, along with other animals living on
the farm, are well cared for throughout their lifetime.”
But in response, Hsiung told the Intercept: “Our
activists use better
biosecurity protocols than the company’s own employees, as evidenced
by the dead, rotting piglets on the farm. Allowing baby animals to rot to
death is, in fact, a serious violation of biosecurity and food safety.
Taking photographs of animal cruelty is not.”
Smithfield also accused the activists of
manipulating their film, claiming that “the video appears to be highly edited
and even staged in an attempt to manufacture an animal care issue where one
does not exist.” But Smithfield did not respond to this question from The
Intercept about the staging allegation: “How would these activists stage
hundreds of pigs in gestation crates and dozens of piglets rotting to death —
all in virtual reality, no less? It would take a Hollywood blockbuster budget
and the most sophisticated team of computer-generated imagery for that. What’s
Smithfield’s theory about what they fabricated in this video?”
The only specifics Smithfield offered was the
assertion that “based on the review of animal care experts, it appears piglets
were moved from one section of the barn to another to support the inaccuracies
and falsehoods described in the video by its creators.”
But Hsiung said: “The video speaks for itself. I
don’t know how we can fake a rotting piglet.” Regarding the accusation that
they moved piglets, he added: “I imagine what they are seeing is piglets in the
wrong sort of pen, gestation rather than farrowing. But that is a testament to
their own failed animal care practices. We were shocked and horrified, as well,
to see piglets born and housed in inappropriate conditions that left them
exposed to trauma.”
In sum, the industry has long responded to these
videos — which they tried in the first instance to use their lobbying power
to criminalize — by insisting that the videos are distorted. Yet they
never specify what these supposed distortions are. Now that activists are using
virtual reality technology, which allows the viewer to see everything the
activists see, such claims are even more untenable than they were before.
A rescued piglet, named Lily, recovers under a
blanket.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
Revolving
door with agribusiness
A recent change in U.S. political discourse —
spurred by events such as the 2008 financial crisis, the Occupy movement, and
the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign — is the increasingly common use of
the words “oligarchy” and “plutocracy” to describe the country’s political
system. Though dramatic, the terms, melded together, describe a fairly simple
and common state of affairs: power exerted by and exercised for the exclusive
benefit of a small group of people who wield the greatest financial power.
It is hard to imagine a more vivid illustration than
watching FBI agents don bulletproof vests and execute DNA search warrants for
Lily and Lizzie, all to deter and intimidate critics of a savage industry that
funds politicians and the lobbyists that direct them.
Substantial attention has been paid over the last
several years to the “revolving door” that runs Washington — industry
executives being brought in to run the agencies that regulate their industries,
followed by them returning to that industry once their industry-serving
government work is done. That’s how Wall Street barons come to “regulate”
banks, how factory owners come to “regulate” workplace safety laws, how oil
executives come to “regulate” environmental protections — only to leave
the public sector and return back to lavish rewards from those same industries
for a job well done.
Though it receives modest attention, this revolving
door spins faster, and in more blatantly sleazy ways, when it comes to the USDA
and its mandate to safeguard animal welfare. The USDA is typically
dominated by executives from the very factory farm industries that are most in
need of vibrant regulation.
For that reason, animal welfare laws are woefully
inadequate, but the ways in which they are enforced is typically little more
than a bad joke. Industrial farming corporations like Smithfield know they can
get away with any abuse or “mislabeling” deceit (such as misleading claims
about their treatment of animals) because the officials who have been
vested with the sole authority to enforce these laws — federal USDA officials —
are so captive to their industry. Courts have repeatedly ruled that private
individuals, animal rights groups, and even state authorities have no right to
sue to enforce animal welfare laws, because the “exclusive authority” lies
with the U.S. government, which has no real interest in actually enforcing
those laws.
Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue on July 12,
2017, in Atlanta.
Photo: Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP
The current secretary of agriculture, former Georgia
Gov. Sonny Perdue (pictured, right), is just one example, but he vividly
highlights the revolving door form of legalized corruption that dominates this
industry.
Perdue was raised on a Georgia row farm and
obtained his doctorate in veterinary medicine. Despite those seemingly
benign credentials, the factory farm industry celebrated the news of his
nomination by President Donald Trump. The National Chicken Council, for
instance, demanded that
he be “confirmed expeditiously.” The enthusiasm was for good reason.
“Georgia was pretty friendly to food-industry
interests during Perdue’s two terms,” Grub Street reported,
and Perdue “took about $330,000 in contributions from Monsanto and other
agribusinesses for his campaigns.” In 2009, the Biotechnology Innovation
Organization, the lobbying group for genetically modified foods, named Perdue
its “Governor of the Year” because, it said, “he has been a stalwart advocate
of the biosciences in Georgia and truly understands the promise of our
industry.” As Georgia governor, Perdue supported
the rapid expansion of factory farm giant Perdue Farms (to which he
has no familial relation), with its long
history of allegations of animal abuse.
And Perdue has extensive ties to the agribusiness
sector he’s now supposed to oversee and regulate. The firm of which he is the
founding partner and his family owns and runs, Perdue Partners LLC, is an
agribusiness at
the heart of this industry:
After being confirmed, Perdue wasted little
time lavishing his agribusiness industry with gifts. In February, the USDA
“abruptly removed inspection reports and other information from its
website about the treatment of animals at thousands of research
laboratories, zoos, dog breeding operations and other facilities,” reported
the Washington Post. Then, two senators who have received large sums from
farmers and ranchers — Democrat Debbie Stabenow and Republican Pat Roberts
— agitated
for the recession of the Obama administration’s mild regulations on
organic eggs, designed to improve conditions for chickens, and the Perdue-led
USDA “put the new standard on hold and suggested that it might even be
withdrawn.”
In sum, with industry insiders dominating the sole
agency (USDA) with the authority to regulate factory farms, animals that are
captive, abused, tortured, and slaughtered en masse have little chance, even
when it comes to just applying existing laws with a minimal amount of
diligence. The politics of the U.S. — including the fact that a key farm state,
Iowa, plays such a central role in presidential elections — means there are
massive forces arrayed behind factory farms, and very few in support of animal
welfare.
Piglets are raised in cramped, filthy conditions at
Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
From
fringe to the mainstream
But the animal rights movement, despite receiving
relatively scant media attention and operating under the threat of federal
prosecutions for terrorism, boasts some of the nation’s more
effective, shrewd, and tenacious political activists. They have made
significant strides in turning the public against the worst of the prevailing
practices on these farms, and more generally, in forcing into the public
consciousness the knowledge of how this industry imposes suffering, abuse, and
torture on living beings on a mass and systematic scale, all to maximize
profits.
Just a decade ago, the cause of animal cruelty and
exploitation was a fringe position, rarely appearing outside far-left circles.
That has all changed, thanks largely to the efforts of these activists, many of
whom have been imprisoned for their efforts. Most activists say that it was
unimaginable even a decade ago for major newspaper columnists such as the New
York Times’ Nicholas Kristof or Frank Bruni to take up their cause, yet that’s
precisely what they have done in a series of columns over the last several
years.
“If you torture a single chicken and are caught,
you’re likely to be arrested. If you scald thousands of chickens alive, you’re
an industrialist who will be lauded for your acumen,” Kristof wrote
in one 2015 column. He described the savagery of the process used to
slaughter chickens by the millions and scornfully dismissed industry’s claim
that no abuse or mistreatment was found by their auditors.
In a column the year before, Kristof detailed
the barbarism
and misleading claims that chickens are “humanely raised” at
Perdue Farms — the company USDA Secretary Perdue helped to expand — and
concluded: “Torture a single chicken and you risk arrest. Abuse hundreds of
thousands of chickens for their entire lives? That’s agribusiness.”
And that’s to say nothing of the other significant
costs from industrial farming. There are serious health risks posed by the
fecal waste produced at such farms. And the excessive, reckless use of
antibiotics common at factory farms can create
treatment-resistant bacterial strains capable of infecting and
killing humans. There is also increasing awareness that
industrial farming meaningfully exacerbates climate problems, with some
research suggesting that it produces more greenhouse gas emissions than
all forms of transportation combined. Reviewing the meat industry in 2014,
Kristof summarized what
he learned this way:
Our industrial food system is unhealthy. It
privatizes gains but socializes the health and environmental costs. It rewards
shareholders — Tyson’s stock price has quadrupled since early 2009 — but can be
ghastly for the animals and humans it touches.
Bruni wrote in
a 2014 column headlined “According Animals Dignity” of “a broadening,
deepening concern about animals that’s no longer sufficiently captured by the
phrase ‘animal welfare.’” Instead of simply curbing the most egregious abuses,
he wrote, a more principled awareness of the intrinsic worth and rights of
animals is emerging: “an era of what might be called animal dignity is upon
us.”
Some progress is indeed undeniable. Laws are being
re-written to recognize that dogs and other pets are more than
property; places such as Sea World and Ringling Brothers’ circuses can
no longer featureimprisoned animals forced
to perform; and some states are enacting laws criminalizing the worst
extremes of animal cruelty.
One U.S. Senator, Democrat Cory Booker of New
Jersey, has placed animal rights protections as one of his legislative
priorities. Booker, who has been a vegetarian since college and recently
announced his transition to full veganism, has sponsored a spate of
bills to fortify the rights of animals: from banning the
selling of shark fins to limiting the
legal uses of animals for testing to requiring humane
treatment of animals in all federal facilities.
While he has been attacked by
the New York Post for “animal rights extremism” after he announced his
veganism, Booker now regularly
and unflinchingly invokes the core principles of animal rights: “I
want to try to live my own values as consciously and purposefully as I can.
Being vegan for me is a cleaner way of not participating in practices that
don’t align with my values.” Rather than these legislative efforts being
scorned, a spokesman for Booker told the Intercept that “Sens. Merkley and
Whitehouse have been reliable allies on animal testing and other efforts; the
Shark Fin effort has a number of cosponsors as
well; and Sens. Schatz, Markey, Warren, Feinstein, Blumenthal have been
partners as well.”
The devastating cost of industrial farming and
the mass torture and slaughter on which it depends — moral, spiritual, physical,
environmental — are being documented in scholarly circles with increasing
clarity. A group of public health specialists jointly wrote in a New
York Times op-ed in May: “This sweeping change in meat production and
consumption has had grave consequences for our health and environment, and
these problems will grow only worse if current trends continue.”
Rescued pig Lizzie gives affection to her rescuer,
Wayne Hsuing of DxE.
Photo: Wayne Hsiung/DxE
In general, the core moral and philosophical
question at the heart of animal rights activism is now being seriously
debated: Namely, what gives humans the right or justification to abuse,
exploit, and torture non-human species? If there comes a day when some other
species (broadly defined) — such as machines — surpass humans in intellect and
cognitive complexity, will they have a valid moral
claim to treat humans as commodities whose suffering and death can be
assigned no value?
The irreconcilable contradiction of lavishing
love and protection on dogs and cats, while torturing and slaughtering farm
animals capable of a deep emotional life and great suffering is becoming
increasingly apparent. British anthropologist Jane Goodall, in her groundbreaking
book “The Inner World of Farm Animals,” examined the science of animal
cognition and concluded: “Farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement
and resentment, depression, fear, and pain. They are far more aware and
intelligent than we ever imagined … They are individuals in their own right.”
All of these changes have been driven by animal
rights activists who, often at great risk to themselves, have forced the public
to be aware of the savagery and cruelty supported through food consumption
choices. That’s precisely why this industry is so obsessed with intimidating,
threatening, and outlawing this form of activism: because it is so effective.
Dissidents are tolerated to the extent they remain
ineffectual and unthreatening. When they start to become successful — that is,
threatening to powerful interests — the backlash is inevitable. The tools used
against them are increasingly extreme as their success grows.
To call the FBI’s actions in raiding these animal
sanctuaries a profound waste of its resources is both an understatement and
beside the point. The real short-term goal is to target those most vulnerable —
volunteer-supported animal shelters — to scare them out of taking care of
rescued animals. And the ultimate goal is to fortify and intensify a climate of
intimidation and fear designed to deter animal rights activists from reporting
on the horrifying realities of these factory farms.
There is a temptation to turn away from and ignore
this mass suffering and cruelty because it’s so painful to confront, so much
more pleasant to remain unaware of it. Animal rights activists are determined
to prevent us from doing so, and we should all feel gratitude for their
increasing success in making us see what we are enabling when we consume
the products of this barbaric and sociopathic industry.
Top photo: Two dying piglets were rescued by Direct
Action Everywhere activists from cruel conditions — where they were left to
suffer to death — at Smithfield-owned Circle Four Farm in Utah.
We depend on the support of readers like you to help
keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us
URGENT IMPORTANT -- FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NEEDED FOR A YOUNG BOY 14 Y OLD WITH BRAIN CANCER
Dear Friends,
I have never asked any money/donations for myself in my blogs (400) but this is an exceptional emergency. Please help the best you can to assist Isabelle, our French Coordinator, to alleviate as much as possible her step son's health condition.
You can donate through Kees De Graaff
Type your recurring amount here:
The email address connected with Kees Paypal account is keesdegraaff@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.