Yeah, probably the biggest question I've ever posed in a title but stop, think and consider it. As some people have said recently "This is how it starts..." and frankly there's a good bit of validity in this. As outlandish & wild as the statement might be, there's legitimate reason for posing the question.
Animals Australia has a controversial co-founder, the "philosopher" Peter Singer. From time to time Animals Australia heralds him loudly and other times he's gently slid to their shadows only to be wheeled out again later. But fact is, he forms a great chunk of their culture and their philosophical position that drives their company strategy. And that generates lots of cash.
Much of it revolves around personhood, who has it and who doesn't. This is the beginnings of a potential dark evil which can lead to where "worth" is ascribed to a person or a group and they're killed. This whole Utilitarian idea is that the group is more important than the individual and the individual can lose any & all worth whatsoever IF the group or the ruling elite of that group decide it is so. Hmmm one ruling group devaluing the individual (?)
Sound like a history proven regime worthy of opposition and outright fear were it to run its full course? Yes, you should be able to look at history and think of a few.
When the group is more important than the individual you have a number of death cult things heading your way, take your pick. Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism and any other despot driven form of brutal & total state control with rights of the individual removed.
Am I mad equating Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot with Animals Australia? Well not aware AA have organised death squads and killed anyone, however the original philosophical pre-suppositions are similar and a great concern.
It comes down to the group deciding who has personhood, who has worth, who is a burden to society and therefore loses their personhood...and ultimately their life.
Lose your personhood and you have no real right to live. You can be killed by that group.
So how's that make Animals Australia part of a death cult movement or a cult that's beginning to pick up & embrace the early stages "ethics" that a death cult might begin with?
We go back to Peter Singer and his heralded place in Animals Australia.
This from their web page.
This comes from the person that caused outrage because he wonders if sex between animals & humans ISN'T wrong if the animals seems willing and isn't being hurt. Don't believe me? Yes its true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKDv3uhqqTI&feature=youtu.be
I kid you not but then it gets even darker. This from an article on Singer's view on what to do with the intellectually disabled
Yes that's an authors view but what does Singer say?
"For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop.
“Disability” is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, “a life with disability” is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability.
But let’s turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being. Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being.
On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one."
For more reading on the dark, dangerous & potential death cult leanings of the Singer thinking you can read this. Read it 2 or 3 times.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/young-case-against-peter-singer/4199120
Singer doesn't say when an unborn child can & can't be aborted, he only ranks it on the "worth".
To him the judged lack of worth due to mental disability is the death decider, not the place in the gestation. The sad and extremely scary part is, this lack of worth doesn't change so you could with his logic kill people with mental disabilities even if they're grown adults
If an unborn child has a mental disability and an evil society says its ok to prevent them being born then that society can prevent the already born from living because they have no worth or personhood. Its a small jump and a moving cult will do it.
The trouble is Singer and Animals Australia have ascribed personhood to animals with all the social distortion of "Stand up for the voiceless" cute Bambi like photos and all the fake heart string tuggers.
Singer has elevated the worth of a pig higher than that of a child with a mental disability. Strangely he thinks the pig cannot be eaten and the disabled child need not be allowed to live.
For some reason his Utilitarian "thought" doesn't allow the useful use of animals for protein but disallows disabled children to actual live. Have a long hard think on that over an entire day...then look again at the core beliefs of Animals Australia. You think, you decide.
These sort of brain twists are the beginnings of some death cults The twisting, manufacturing false evidence or bogus facts have never been far from the death cults. At the beginning of their life cycle a death cult is radical, subversive, challenging to some and it's these traits that attract many who are young, rebellious & seeking a cause but don't look to deep. Everyone else is wrong and discussing it with them often cements them in the cult. Free thinking and proper rigour on their position is a threat from unbelievers. Staying true using any tactics at all to prevail...Sound familiar?
Is Animals Australia part of a Death Cult movement? The loudest yells of no will come from within.
There is a Death Cult movement developing, humans are targeting non compliant humans and all animals will be elevated to a higher personhood in order to ensure no human ever eats, farms or harms an animal ever again.
Doesn't explain what to do with the lion who kills & eats the antelope. Apparently the lion doesn't get arrested and jailed for murder. That's nature. A lion can eat an antelope but a human cannot.
Sounds very speciesist. It will be applied only where they require it.
The end destination of a death cult is to transfer "personhood" & "worth" to some and remove it from other in order to justify their murder. That's the end result, that's the end game. So be very scared and opposed to anything that thinks the State can decide which individuals have personhood and worth & who doesn't.
Can you think of a ruling class, ideology, worldview or regime that killed people with disabilities because there was deemed to be no social worth, no personhood?
I can and it lead onwards to them deeming who without a disability should lose their worth & personhood so they could be executed.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program
Is Animals Australia in the first stages of the Life Cycle of a Death Cult Movement?
You decide for yourself.
I can find many other reasons to oppose them, want them investigated, the board sacked and any DGR or Charity Status removed.
For one the #CashForCruelty scandal.
