The Beastliness of PETA

By John "Birdman" Bryant


PETA, an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is an organization of animal rightist leftists whose creed is the logical equivalent of 'All men are created equal to cockroaches', except that instead of talking about cockroaches and other entities which most people find revolting, it talks about dogs and other animals for which most people have a warm fuzzy feeling -- thereby demonstrating yet again that the left's program is based largely on illusion and the sinister and dishonest manipulation of language.

The PETA creed described above is what might be called a type of PETA Principle, ie, a law expressing the fact that shit, particularly when full of gas, rises to the top of the leftist mind, as the leftist kneecap is usually called. It is of course obvious that anyone who believes in the PETA creed necessarily believes that they should slice themselves up so as to provide food for cockroaches, since this would make more life, and thus create more value; and certainly the world would be much better off if all the members of PETA followed this principle to its logical conclusion.

But given the forlorn hope of this particular possibility, we may ask why the PETA people think that the Great Law of Nature -- 'Eat or be eaten' -- should be suspended for human-animal interactions, but not for animal- animal ones, ie, why is it that PETA violates its own Equality Axiom by raising animals above humans by saying that it is ok for animals to kill and eat other animals, but not for humans to kill and eat them. That, I believe, is sufficient to make plain that this particular animal rightist philosophy has pretty well PETAed out.

But this logical conundrum is not the end of the matter. For consider the fact that human beings give life in abundance to many species which would survive, if at all, only in very limited numbers in the wild. What this means, then, is that farmers create value according to the PETA philosophy by breeding and sustaining their livestock. But farmers cannot afford to do this unless they get something out of it themselves, to wit, the meat and other animal products which give them an economic incentive to engage in animal husbandry. So unless PETA wants to remove the possibility of sustaining a major portion of the life which they deem so valuable, then they are going to have to accept the tradeoff of allowing the products of animals to be used by human beings.

But there is more to the argument than this. For consider the matter from the animals' point of view: If animals consider their own lives to be valuable, as they obviously do, then how can PETA presume to say that the system which allows them to live for at least a limited time must be destroyed? The point, of course, is that the animals themselves would oppose PETA if they had the faculty to understand and argue their own case. And what is more, if the choice were available to them, it is likely that most animals would willingly accept a farm-type existence to a wild one, not merely because life in the wild would probably not be much longer, but because farm conditions would probably be a lot more pleasant.

All of which is to say that the function of PETA is not to help animals, but to harm or destroy an important part of the free market system, and especially to elevate the leaders of PETA to positions of power so they may preside over the destruction of an economic system and the civilization to which it has given rise, thereby replacing the capitalist-created inequality of abundance with the socialist-created equality of misery.

And that's why there's only one thing to say to these assholes: Eat my PETA!

* * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * *