Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

Adolf Hitler: The Ideological Forefather of PETA and Animal Rights Advocates

June 24, 2011

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society and their animal rights cohorts have publicly shown great compassion for a now famous puppy named Whitey. This animal rights group filed a lawsuit against the owner of the puppy who was identified as Jerzon Senador.

PAWS accused Senador of violating the Animal Welfare Act, a law that seeks “to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operation of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating, or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets.”

For allegedly violating this absurd and non-objective law, Senador may be punished for not less than 6 months or not more than 2 years of imprisonment and may be fined of not less than P1,000.00, but not more than P5,000.00.

The unconditional compassion of these animal rights advocates for animals is very much understandable considering the depravity and the evilness of their ideology or philosophy. Like I said in a previous post, this group and all animal welfare groups are motivated by an anti-Man political ideology. While they publicly flaunt their unconditional concern and compassion for animals, they blatantly ignore the rights and welfare of man, as well as the negative, unintended impacts of their political advocacy on man’s interests.
This reminds me of the animal rights and welfare advocacy of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.
Some of my friends call PETA a neo-Nazi group. Lest I/they be accused of committing a new ridiculous fallacy called “argumentum ad hitlerum”, which is actually a smear term and a fallacy unto itself, let me state here that Adolf Hitler was also an animal lover and an animal rights/welfare advocate. 

This should debunk the so stupid a claim by some people that pet-hanger Jerzon Senador is a wannabe serial killer or whatever.

Section 2 of Nazi Law on Animal Protection states:
It is forbidden:
1. to so neglect an animal in one’s ownership, care or accommodation that it thereby experiences appreciable pain or appreciable damage;
2. to use an animal unnecessarily for what clearly exceeds its powers or causes it appreciable pain, or which it-in consequence of its condition-is obviously not capable of;
3. to use and animal for demonstrations, film-making, spectacles, or other public events to the extent that these events cause the animal appreciable pain or appreciable damage to health;
4. to use a fragile, ill, overworked or old animal for which further life is a torment for any other purpose than to cause or procure a rapid, painless death;
5. to put out one’s domestic animal for the purpose of getting rid of it;
6. to set or test the power of dogs on cats, foxes, and other animals;
7. to shorten the ears or the tail of a dog over two weeks old. This is allowed if it is done with anesthesia;
8. to shorten the tail of a horse. This is allowed if it is to remedy a defect or illness of the tail and is done by a veterinarian and under anesthesia;
9. to perform a painful operation on an animal in an unprofessional manner or without anesthesia, or if anesthesia in a particular case is impossible according to veterinary standards;
10. to kill an animal on a farm for fur otherwise than with anesthesia or in a way that is, in any case, painless;
11. to force-feed fowl;
12. to tear out or separate the thighs of living frogs.
This source narrates the sheer contradiction in the Nazi’s concept of rights and welfare. It states:
Many individuals in Nazi Germany genuinely believed in the “rights” of non-human animals, yet they simultaneously were capable of cruel behavior against members of the Jewish faith. Not only that, but they went as far as using animal protection as a justification for their inhumanity to the Jewish people, as explained by Arluke and Sax.

Another point that could be made regarding Nazi animal protectionists is that they were inconsistent in their actions. When juxtaposed against the pronouncement of a ban on vivisection and claims of ethical superiority, the treatment of the Jewish people and hideous medical experiments that were conducted are arguably inconsistent. Arluke and Sax offered additional examples that illustrate the inconsistent actions of the alleged “…friends of animals…” in Nazi Germany. Once again, however, we encounter another parallel with the contemporary AR movement. At the same time that PETA was expending large sums of money to obtain custody of the Silver Spring Monkeys, they killed 32 “liberated” rabbits and roosters at their Aspin Hill animal “sanctuary” for reasons of “overcrowding.” One wonders why a portion of their multi-million dollar annual budget could not have been used to provide suitable housing for those animals.
There is considerable evidence of acceptance of animal “rights” by officials of the Third Reich, who have proven to be some of the most heinous villians of our century. They loved those non-human animals, though. In Nazi Germany, practices such as vivisection were characterized as Jewish (by relating them to the ritual of kosher slaughter) and thereby vilified. Subsequently, reverence for the “rights” of animals was used to justify the oppression of Jewish people.
As to Hitler the animal lover, Goebbles wrote in his Diary, May 30 1942;
“He (Hitler) has bought himself a young German Shepard dog called “Blondi” which is the apple of his eye. It was touching listening to him say that he enjoyed walking with this dog so much, because only with it could he be sure that [his companion] would not start talking about the war or politics. One notices time and time again that the Fuhrer is slowly but surely becoming lonely. It is very touching to see him play with this young German Shepard dog. The animal has grown so accustomed to him that it will hardly take a step without him. It is very nice to watch the Fuhrer with his dog. At the moment the dog is the only living thing that is constantly with him. At night it sleeps at the foot of his bed, it is allowed into his sleeping compartment in the special train and enjoys a number of privileges….that no human would ever dare to claim. He bought the dog from a minor official in the post office in Ingolstadt”
Does this sound familiar? The Nazis declared great compassion for animals, yet they sought to eliminate the entire Jewish race. The die-hard members of PETA and animal rights group publicly declare the same degree of compassion for animals and pets, yet they don’t have the same compassion to drop a complaint against a pet-hanger named Jerzon Senador.