Ecology
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
UNESCO’s Rights of Animals – II
It Is Not a Crime to Kill Animals
After establishing some presuppositions in the last article, let us see what UNESCO actually is.
What is the United Nations? The Organization of the United Nations is an entity that encompasses all the nations of the world from the United States super-power to smaller nations such as Lichtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, San Marino and even some small islands in the Persian Gulf where there might be an emir and 300 Arabs living and fighting among themselves there. All these nations are members of the U.N.
The U.N. is not just a tribunal or cenacle where the nations discuss their higher interests in war conflicts, resolve quarrels and avoid contentions, but the U.N. is also an international organ that has received delegated power from the nations to elaborate a future culture, the future civilization of the 21st century.
In this sense, the U.N. should be seen as the laboratory of 21st century civilization and the civilizations that will follow.
The U.N. has a specialized organ to elaborate the coming civilization and its doctrines. This is UNESCO, which is properly speaking the heart of the U.N. The most important part of the U.N. is not the assembly upon which the newspapers offer daily reports; its most crucial part is UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Now then, recently, with all naturalness and without raising eyebrows, UNESCO declared a sort of equality between animals and men, with indications that this equality will eventually be extended to plants as well. This is the mysterious project that is being planned for the 21st century that we plan to analyze.
A solemn declaration of this fundamental equality was made in Paris at the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the U.N. On this occasion, a step further was taken from the Declaration of the Rights of Man made by the French Revolution; this step is the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Animals.
This is in fact a second grand plummet. The first was the declaration of the equality of all men; the second that we see today is the declaration of equality between men and animals. As you will see shortly, the end toward which this tends, although it is not declared openly, is that it will no longer be tolerated for man to eat an animal, which would be considered a murder of sorts. Man cannot eat meat.
So, man will only be able to eat plants and herbs. This is exactly what the Hindu religion preaches. You have all heard about the sacred cows in India, beasts that no one can harm because the Hindus believe that there is a human being reincarnated in the cow, raising it to goddess status. So, they cannot kill or mistreat a cow because it would be a lack of charity toward that poor human being exiled under the conditions of a cow. For this reason, I believe many of the Hindus are vegetarians; they do not eat meat.
You see, then, that we are witnessing a sort of return to Eastern Pantheism, which preaches that everything is god. But when everything is god, nothing is god. Today this is being officially affirmed by the representatives of all the nations of the world, without any protest. It is an indirect proclamation that God does not exist; that is, it is an immersion into atheism.
Although this is an enormous step in degrading mankind, no one seems to perceive it. It is a colossal step in the Revolution. This Declaration not only promotes equality among men, but defends even the equality among beings that are not of the human genre.
The Preamble of the Declaration
The Preamble of the Declaration reads:
Considering that all animals have rights … (1)
Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, the animal does not have rights. The Church affirms that a man should not mistreat an animal without reason, but this is not because the animal has rights, but because a man should not do things that are unreasonable.
I do not have the right to crumple these papers with notes and throw them in the garbage since they are useful for our meeting; it took me effort to write them and there is no reason to destroy the product of my work, which is destined to offer a benefit for you. But it is not because the paper has rights.
This presupposition is tantamount to saying either that every animal has an immortal soul or that man does not have a soul and, for this reason, he is no different from an animal.
Considering that the ignorance and contempt of these animals’ rights cause man to commit serious crimes against nature and against animals …
Here, we see for the first time the concept of a double crime against nature and animal.
Someone could defend this concept by arguing: “Is it not a crime against nature to drop a bomb on a beautiful mountain such as the Fujiyama and destroy it?”
My response: Let us slow down in this reasoning process. If I were to do such a thing without a justifiable reason, I would commit an offense against God, who created that mountain for men to think about Him and to lead them toward Him. If I drop a bomb and destroy the mountain, I prevent that mountain from achieving its final purpose. But, again, this is wrong not because the mountain has rights; it is because God has rights. The mountain has no rights.
Considering that the recognition by the human species of the right of other animal species to live …
That is to say, we men are no more and no less than any of the other animal species. This is complete egalitarianism and atheism.
… constitutes the basis of the coexistence of the species in the world …
This contradicts a common occurrence in nature. We all know that the animal species live by eating one another. Such a statement is mere stupidity.
Let us take the example of a small lizard, which lives from eating flies, mosquitoes and bugs. Where do we find here the “basis of the coexistence of species” that is affirmed in the U.N. Declaration? It does not exist. What exists is the opposite: In the animal kingdom, one animal devours another freely and regularly. In other words, the person who wrote this document suffers from a kind of blindness: He does not see what is evident.
The document states the fact that one animal cannot kill another as the basis for their coexistence. The contrary is true: Man raises animals and increases their numbers only in order to slaughter and consume them. No one would raise chickens or cattle if were not to eat them. The basis of their existence is exactly the opposite of what the UN document pretends. They exist so that man can eat the animals in due order. This is what explains their presence in the world.
You can see that this principle of the Declaration is also an indirect condemnation of hunting as a crime. It would be a type of murder for a man to hunt a fox, boar or deer. The poetry that the Europeans created around hunting as a sport disappears with this stupidity.
I do not consider it a crime to kill the fox; to the contrary, what I consider a crime is to kill the hunting of the fox. I consider hunting so civilized, practiced with such intelligence and grace in many countries, that I believe it is a crime against mankind to forbid this magnificent exercise of human agility and skill.
Note 1: These comments were made on November 8, 1978, shortly after the UNESCO issued its first Declaration. The text available in 2017 suffered several changes, which are not addressed in this series.
Continued
What is the United Nations? The Organization of the United Nations is an entity that encompasses all the nations of the world from the United States super-power to smaller nations such as Lichtenstein, Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, San Marino and even some small islands in the Persian Gulf where there might be an emir and 300 Arabs living and fighting among themselves there. All these nations are members of the U.N.
UNESCO has offices in almost every nation; above, in Brasilia
In this sense, the U.N. should be seen as the laboratory of 21st century civilization and the civilizations that will follow.
The U.N. has a specialized organ to elaborate the coming civilization and its doctrines. This is UNESCO, which is properly speaking the heart of the U.N. The most important part of the U.N. is not the assembly upon which the newspapers offer daily reports; its most crucial part is UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
Now then, recently, with all naturalness and without raising eyebrows, UNESCO declared a sort of equality between animals and men, with indications that this equality will eventually be extended to plants as well. This is the mysterious project that is being planned for the 21st century that we plan to analyze.
A solemn declaration of this fundamental equality was made in Paris at the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of the U.N. On this occasion, a step further was taken from the Declaration of the Rights of Man made by the French Revolution; this step is the Universal Declaration of the Rights of the Animals.
This is in fact a second grand plummet. The first was the declaration of the equality of all men; the second that we see today is the declaration of equality between men and animals. As you will see shortly, the end toward which this tends, although it is not declared openly, is that it will no longer be tolerated for man to eat an animal, which would be considered a murder of sorts. Man cannot eat meat.
The Buddhist believes the cow is a sacred animal with more rights than man
You see, then, that we are witnessing a sort of return to Eastern Pantheism, which preaches that everything is god. But when everything is god, nothing is god. Today this is being officially affirmed by the representatives of all the nations of the world, without any protest. It is an indirect proclamation that God does not exist; that is, it is an immersion into atheism.
Although this is an enormous step in degrading mankind, no one seems to perceive it. It is a colossal step in the Revolution. This Declaration not only promotes equality among men, but defends even the equality among beings that are not of the human genre.
The Preamble of the Declaration
The Preamble of the Declaration reads:
Considering that all animals have rights … (1)
Now, according to the Catholic doctrine, the animal does not have rights. The Church affirms that a man should not mistreat an animal without reason, but this is not because the animal has rights, but because a man should not do things that are unreasonable.
I do not have the right to crumple these papers with notes and throw them in the garbage since they are useful for our meeting; it took me effort to write them and there is no reason to destroy the product of my work, which is destined to offer a benefit for you. But it is not because the paper has rights.
This presupposition is tantamount to saying either that every animal has an immortal soul or that man does not have a soul and, for this reason, he is no different from an animal.
Considering that the ignorance and contempt of these animals’ rights cause man to commit serious crimes against nature and against animals …
A lizard defies the UN Declaration by devouring an insect
Someone could defend this concept by arguing: “Is it not a crime against nature to drop a bomb on a beautiful mountain such as the Fujiyama and destroy it?”
My response: Let us slow down in this reasoning process. If I were to do such a thing without a justifiable reason, I would commit an offense against God, who created that mountain for men to think about Him and to lead them toward Him. If I drop a bomb and destroy the mountain, I prevent that mountain from achieving its final purpose. But, again, this is wrong not because the mountain has rights; it is because God has rights. The mountain has no rights.
Considering that the recognition by the human species of the right of other animal species to live …
That is to say, we men are no more and no less than any of the other animal species. This is complete egalitarianism and atheism.
… constitutes the basis of the coexistence of the species in the world …
This contradicts a common occurrence in nature. We all know that the animal species live by eating one another. Such a statement is mere stupidity.
Let us take the example of a small lizard, which lives from eating flies, mosquitoes and bugs. Where do we find here the “basis of the coexistence of species” that is affirmed in the U.N. Declaration? It does not exist. What exists is the opposite: In the animal kingdom, one animal devours another freely and regularly. In other words, the person who wrote this document suffers from a kind of blindness: He does not see what is evident.
Animal rights groups today are trying to ban fox hunting
You can see that this principle of the Declaration is also an indirect condemnation of hunting as a crime. It would be a type of murder for a man to hunt a fox, boar or deer. The poetry that the Europeans created around hunting as a sport disappears with this stupidity.
I do not consider it a crime to kill the fox; to the contrary, what I consider a crime is to kill the hunting of the fox. I consider hunting so civilized, practiced with such intelligence and grace in many countries, that I believe it is a crime against mankind to forbid this magnificent exercise of human agility and skill.
Note 1: These comments were made on November 8, 1978, shortly after the UNESCO issued its first Declaration. The text available in 2017 suffered several changes, which are not addressed in this series.
Continued
Posted January 13, 2017
______________________
______________________
