Ecology
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
UNESCO’s Rights of Animals – V
Final Goals of the Declaration on Animal Rights
Today I will conclude the analysis of the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals issued by the UNESCO. (See articles 1,
2, 3 and 4). In continuation, it reads:
Every animal chosen by man to be his companion has the right to a life following its natural longevity.
This story of man choosing an animal for his companion sounds like concubinage or a marriage of man with animal.
Now, the man who has a dog becomes obliged to give it the conditions to live out the full duration of its natural life. What happens if the man does not have conditions for this? Is he obliged to suffer privation to assist his dog? If he lets the dog go, it is crime, according to the last article.
The result: You will not want to own a dog any longer. And rightly so, because one thing is to have a dog in your house for protection or enjoyment; another thing is to have to agree to all these demands by which you enter into a surveillance system, having animal rights’ police coming after you, if you don’t follow the rules. The situation is not so different from having the State with machine-guns at your back just because you have a dog. You admit a dog into your house and, after that authorities come to check whether you are treating it well. So, to avoid troubles with the police, you prefer not to have the dog.
Every animal used in work has the right to a reasonable limit regarding the time and intensity of its labor …
So, now the animal has an eight-hour work day. I am sure that when you woke up this morning you could not imagine you would hear an absurdity like this. It is the surprise of the day.
… with restorative nourishment and rest…
Thus, a regulation for birds, pack animals and every kind of beasts will come. The animal becomes the nightmare of man. This is what the U.N. wants so that man will no longer keep animals and will eventually allow them all to live freely in nature.
This Declaration proclaims the independence of the animal from man. It is the French Revolution applied to man’s daily life. It is the logical consequence of that egalitarian revolution.
Experiments on animals entailing physical or psychological suffering violate the rights of the animal, be they medical, scientific, commercial or any other type.
Psychological restrictions applied to animals – it’s inconceivable! Psyche means soul; to speak about the psychology of an animal is to admit it has a rational soul.
Today, there are countess illnesses that have been cured thanks to laboratories where experiments with animals were made. The animal is used to save the life of man. Now, this is forbidden. Guinea pigs and rats will no longer be permitted for use in the experiments of physicians and scientists. Man can suffer from every type of disease, but a rat cannot be used to save his life.
You see that when the delirium reaches this point, no remnant of good sense exists.
If the animal is raised for alimentation, it must be fed, sheltered, transported and slaughtered without suffering any anxiety or pain.
There is a contradiction here, because if no animal can be killed, why does this Declaration now admit that it can be slaughtered after being raised for alimentation? Evidently, this article is placed here conditionally until the slaughterhouses, cattle farms, etc. are eliminated. Until then, a concession is made, but it is made with the aim of preparing minds to accept the rest.
No animal should be exploited for the enjoyment of man.
No comment.
All acts that imply the unnecessary death of an animal constitutes biocide, that is, a crime against life.
This is to equate the life of a rat to the life of man: Biocide and homicide. It also sounds the death toll for the corridas de toros (bullfights) in Spain and cockfights the world over.
Any act that implies the death of a large number of wild animals constitutes genocide, that is, a crime against the species.
Then, to kill a large number of rats that infest an abandoned mine and to kill a large number of men are considered crimes of the same genre.
A dead animal must be treated with respect.
Today, respect toward humans who have died has been reduced to the minimum with the introduction of the pagan practice of cremation. Dead aborted children are thrown into garbage bins and only a few people complain. However, a dead cat must be treated with respect. If someone throws his dead cat into the trash, he goes to jail; but if he throws his son there, there is no penalty…
The protection and safeguard of animals must be represented at the level of governmental organizations.
Thus, in addition to having UNESCO defending this stupidity, there must also be governmental level organizations, that is, representatives in Congress who discuss the health of frogs, diplomats who pledge with colleagues of other countries to defend the rights of mosquitoes being exterminated in their common borders; navy brigadiers who defend the rights of sardines… It is a world government of animals. Obviously there are some witch doctors and Brahman gurus directing this sewage.
It ends with this last idiocy:
The rights of animals must be defended by law, like human rights.
Well, we have reached such madness that I believe it is the case to ask this final question: If man does not use animals or plants to feed himself, where does the Revolution want to go?
I see two possible exits:
1. The Revolution proposes that man should one day live from the minerals of the earth transformed by factories into pills, and no longer from agriculture and livestock; this would be an easier and more efficient way for man to live, since he could nourish himself solely from such pills. He would swallow a pill and this would sustain him for the entire day. It would be much cheaper and he would not need to torment and brutalize nature.
This solution would imply that man should live from the factory and for the factory. It would be an exclusively industrial civilization with everything natural removed from man’s life.
It would be, we see, a monstrous civilization. I am horrified at the prospect of being nourished by one pill per day composed exclusively of minerals. I do not believe that man could maintain himself with just this. But above all, it is contrary to the order of nature. As a consequence we would have cities without trees or any other plants.
2. Another possibility follows the line of tribalism. Man would increasingly use less elements of nature following the tenets of a hypnotizing tribalist religion that ultimately heads toward the extinction of mankind.
So, births would become rarer, and people themselves would be weaker, more imbecilic, eating less nourishing food, becoming decadent as a species until, finally, becoming extinct. The human genre ends because men committed a self-genocide. To save animals and plants men would commit suicide. They would become the victim of their atheism and egalitarianism.
Which of the two solutions is more probable? I still do not have the data to say.
What is clear is that this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals represents a new phase of the Revolution on its path to establish a completely egalitarian society, which will be the opposite of the natural order created by God.
Every animal chosen by man to be his companion has the right to a life following its natural longevity.
This story of man choosing an animal for his companion sounds like concubinage or a marriage of man with animal.
Now, the man who has a dog becomes obliged to give it the conditions to live out the full duration of its natural life. What happens if the man does not have conditions for this? Is he obliged to suffer privation to assist his dog? If he lets the dog go, it is crime, according to the last article.
Animal rights police in Norway checking for violations of 'rights'
Every animal used in work has the right to a reasonable limit regarding the time and intensity of its labor …
So, now the animal has an eight-hour work day. I am sure that when you woke up this morning you could not imagine you would hear an absurdity like this. It is the surprise of the day.
… with restorative nourishment and rest…
Thus, a regulation for birds, pack animals and every kind of beasts will come. The animal becomes the nightmare of man. This is what the U.N. wants so that man will no longer keep animals and will eventually allow them all to live freely in nature.
This Declaration proclaims the independence of the animal from man. It is the French Revolution applied to man’s daily life. It is the logical consequence of that egalitarian revolution.
Experiments on animals entailing physical or psychological suffering violate the rights of the animal, be they medical, scientific, commercial or any other type.
Psychological restrictions applied to animals – it’s inconceivable! Psyche means soul; to speak about the psychology of an animal is to admit it has a rational soul.
We are already on the way to making it criminal to use test animals in labs
You see that when the delirium reaches this point, no remnant of good sense exists.
If the animal is raised for alimentation, it must be fed, sheltered, transported and slaughtered without suffering any anxiety or pain.
There is a contradiction here, because if no animal can be killed, why does this Declaration now admit that it can be slaughtered after being raised for alimentation? Evidently, this article is placed here conditionally until the slaughterhouses, cattle farms, etc. are eliminated. Until then, a concession is made, but it is made with the aim of preparing minds to accept the rest.
No animal should be exploited for the enjoyment of man.
No comment.
Chaining a guard dog is equated to chaining a person...
This is to equate the life of a rat to the life of man: Biocide and homicide. It also sounds the death toll for the corridas de toros (bullfights) in Spain and cockfights the world over.
Any act that implies the death of a large number of wild animals constitutes genocide, that is, a crime against the species.
Then, to kill a large number of rats that infest an abandoned mine and to kill a large number of men are considered crimes of the same genre.
A dead animal must be treated with respect.
Today, respect toward humans who have died has been reduced to the minimum with the introduction of the pagan practice of cremation. Dead aborted children are thrown into garbage bins and only a few people complain. However, a dead cat must be treated with respect. If someone throws his dead cat into the trash, he goes to jail; but if he throws his son there, there is no penalty…
A large protest staged in Spain by Animal Equality activists; below, its counterpart in LA copies the event
Thus, in addition to having UNESCO defending this stupidity, there must also be governmental level organizations, that is, representatives in Congress who discuss the health of frogs, diplomats who pledge with colleagues of other countries to defend the rights of mosquitoes being exterminated in their common borders; navy brigadiers who defend the rights of sardines… It is a world government of animals. Obviously there are some witch doctors and Brahman gurus directing this sewage.
It ends with this last idiocy:
The rights of animals must be defended by law, like human rights.
Well, we have reached such madness that I believe it is the case to ask this final question: If man does not use animals or plants to feed himself, where does the Revolution want to go?
I see two possible exits:
1. The Revolution proposes that man should one day live from the minerals of the earth transformed by factories into pills, and no longer from agriculture and livestock; this would be an easier and more efficient way for man to live, since he could nourish himself solely from such pills. He would swallow a pill and this would sustain him for the entire day. It would be much cheaper and he would not need to torment and brutalize nature.
This solution would imply that man should live from the factory and for the factory. It would be an exclusively industrial civilization with everything natural removed from man’s life.
A Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is gaining in popularity; below, one of its slogans
2. Another possibility follows the line of tribalism. Man would increasingly use less elements of nature following the tenets of a hypnotizing tribalist religion that ultimately heads toward the extinction of mankind.
So, births would become rarer, and people themselves would be weaker, more imbecilic, eating less nourishing food, becoming decadent as a species until, finally, becoming extinct. The human genre ends because men committed a self-genocide. To save animals and plants men would commit suicide. They would become the victim of their atheism and egalitarianism.
Which of the two solutions is more probable? I still do not have the data to say.
What is clear is that this Universal Declaration of the Rights of Animals represents a new phase of the Revolution on its path to establish a completely egalitarian society, which will be the opposite of the natural order created by God.
Posted February 20, 2017
______________________
______________________
