BY JOHN NASH
You are probably vaguely aware by now that there is something very, very, wrong with this dying government’s attitude to rural matters. After all, most people who make a living on or from the land thought they could rely on the Conservative Party for its down-to-earth policies – policies that once balanced the touchy-feely, self-centred anthropomorphic dreams of modern urban society with a rather more robust pragmatism borne out of wrestling a living from the land of this wonderful country.
Let’s face it -“Ah, bless!” and “this green and pleasant land” are not your primary thoughts when you are up to your armpit in a cow’s lady-bits or up to your ankles in pig slurry at three in the morning, the gate’s wide open and the temperature is well below zero. It’s such a very long, long way from the world of an MP, nodding off in the comfy, green leather seats of the riverside Westminster Asylum, wondering how to get his bar bill onto expenses and his leg over one of the other asylum residents. Yet, that’s how it once was, that time when there was a thread of reality connecting rural cow shed and urban feather bed.
Well, things have changed. The Conservative Party have since become addicted to clickbait polling and the ravings of a mad Australian crackpot. Craving popularity, they ask a cross-section of the public what they most dream of, then they turn those “likes” into policies, without doubt a sure-fire vote winner. Giving people what they want without question is why the oldest profession in the world is still so popular, too, although it is hardly the most principled way to run a country. It may look good to a political geek in his blue glass goldfish bowl, but sadly, traipsing after people to blow warm political sugar up their extremities only turns a charismatic leader into a bottom-sniffer. Leaders lead, they don’t follow. No wonder we all feel lost.
To understand much of politics, it is necessary to understand classical economics whose principles haven’t changed in 100,000 years. The right wing, “male”, competitive, primary industries go out of our cave of civilisation to compete with nature in uncivilised ways (where necessary) to win the resources we need for our survival and reproduction.
They drag these resources back to our cave where the mixed, practical, secondary industries turn the resources into useful stuff.
They, in turn, pass the stuff to the tertiary industries, the “female”, co-operative, most civilised caring and sharing left wing, who quietly use the stuff to make our lives as civilised and comfortable as possible, and, as mothers, to reproduce our kind in safety. Unless, of course, you subscribe to Marxian economics, in which case reality doesn’t affect your world view at all.
Conservatives used to be the people whose primary interest was in the male, right side, competitive and constructive supply-side activities. Many did well and were proudly philanthropic, but they were conservative – they refused to step into the female, left side consumption and cooperative consumptive activities as their primary objective. However, as a society, because science and technology have become very good at getting and converting resources, we have been consuming quite a lot for a while now, with inevitable results. We have grown fat and comfortable, and with it, consumer society is sliding towards the left, caring, sharing side. Society is feminising (the bit that Marx foresaw but misunderstood), and so the right side (typified by primary industries, scientists, hunters and the military) are watching their tide going out with dismay. Once upon a time, a Conservative government would take a disciplined lead and pull the system back towards more balanced supply-and-demand robust health, but the present Government has opted to follow and slide onto the subjective, comfy couch with the over-fed consumers. It’s so much easier to sell sweets than exercise to munchkins. They have turned quasi-socialist (I’m sorry, wash your eyeballs with soap).
Hidden behind the shouty mob, the true left side is about the feminine principle of caring and nurture, so unsurprisingly, to steal votes from Labour, the Conservatives have to be seen as caring and not at all nasty. This “feminising” of the Conservative Party (without appearing too lefty) needs a Trojan Horse. Or at least Trojan farm animals. Enter, on newly-greased wheels, the very caring “Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation” (CAWF), whose primary aim is ostensibly caring about animal welfare – an easy sell to a couch-potato public. There is nothing wrong with concern for animal welfare, Dear Reader, and the CAWF website prominently displays their interest in the welfare of chickens, pigs, fish and the transport of farm animals, etc. This is all very nice and heart-warming, provided your personal experience is limited to doting companion animals and you don’t have to make a living supplying meat or milk to a Dick Turpin supermarket chain whilst wading through a blizzard of electronic paperwork created by hordes of parasitic shiny-bums simply to justify their sheltered employment in Whitehall.
The CAWF slogan is “A strong voice for Animal Welfare within the Conservative Party”. Lovely. Very commendable, Vicar. Then you notice something on their website about lobster, crab and octopus “sentience”. Eh? Suddenly, you realise that, while posing as kindly people, these are in fact the weirdos who recently introduced “sentience” law into UK animal welfare. But sentience has no place in animal welfare, Dear Reader. It is a philosophical confidence trick, a syphilitic werewolf in sheep’s clothing that preys upon people who love animals, who, once bitten, either become zombie-like followers and believers, or else they are too embarrassed to admit they’ve been had.
Why a con-trick? Because it is sold as animal welfare but it is not. Animal rights are the opposite – human woes. We all know and understand that animal welfare is a desirable thing, and that we should all do the best we can to make sure that every animal’s life and death is as good as we can make it IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. However, it can never be perfect because we have to kill the poor buggers in order to do anything – eat, farm, build or exploit any of our energy and other resources. We all suspect animals can feel pain to some extent or other, but to incorporate sentience into law is the road to la-la land. In the end, it ponders animals’ “feelings”. I kid you not.
Now, I don’t need a PhD in biology or even a General Science “O” level, nor any stupid laws to imagine that an octopus, for example, is not too pleased about being dragged up from the high pressure of the sea bed and chucked in a bucket to spend half an hour dying slowly from suffocation in air.
However, octopuses are delicious, so too bad for them. Sorry, mate. I don’t kill them to be cruel – I kill them to eat them. Yes, I can eat seaweed instead, but I prefer octopus, I am an apex predator, and I am an adult about it. An octopus is an intelligent, entertaining, captivating creature, but on my barbecue with a glass of wine made from equally murdered grapes, it is even more captivating. So get over it, grow up and take responsibility.
If you add sentience to animal welfare, then you have set it down in the puddle of excrement called animal rights, itself a “fundamental truth” on a fundamental par with David Icke informing us he is the Son of God and that Her Majesty the Queen is a Lizard from the Babylonian Brotherhood. It is therefore hardly surprising that immediately after announcing their victorious stupidity over octopodian sentience, the CAWF website VERY quickly adds, “the decision will not affect any existing legislation or industry practices such as fishing. There will be no direct impact on the shellfish catching or restaurant industry”.
Of course there won’t be any impact. Do we all look that stupid???? Pull the other one, you cardboard-eating, over-sensitive, hypocritical morons. We see what you are up to. Take your animal rights and vegetarian agendas, fold them diagonally to make three very sharp corners, and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine and very few octopuses care to live. We don’t need votes that badly.
Whatever causes apparently normal politicians to have this sort of infantile mental collapse? Well, let’s follow the smell of rotting. Back on the CAWF website, you will find them proudly announcing the news that their “co-founder, Lorraine Platt, spoke at a seminar organised jointly by the “All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APPGAW – I know, try Gaviscon with it). The event is the first in a series on the ‘Expanding Moral Circle’, focused on whether rights should be afforded to other groups such as animals, robots, and future generations”. Whaaaat?????
It’s enough to make you want to bend over and bite off your own testicles should you possess them, Dear Reader. If you thought upsetting crabs and lobsters was bad, wait till they start on upsetting robots. It’s about time to put the Mental Health Act on the table in front of these sick fools, not the Animal Welfare Bill. Even more revealing, their proudly-trumpeted seminar featured a vary ominous star speaker.
Oh, dear, it’s time to don the Tena Lady pants and bicycle clips. You are very likely to experience a rather unwanted evacuation. All is suddenly revealed. These fools are praying at the altar of Peter Singer, the archbishop of the global animal rights sect. He actually wrote their bible, “Animal liberation”. His book started well with a whole raft of horror stories about intensively farmed animals, but instead of simply suggesting ways to better welfare, he suggested that they should be liberated, “like slaves”, a huge idea that filled his apparently empty head with zealous euphoria. With liberation, he argued that animals have the same rights that we humans do. The man is stark raving mad. No wonder he gave vegans the whole world over a collective, philosophical orgasm. They all quote him verbatim, proving that their mental diet is as deficient as their physical one, poor devils. It was loopy Singer who globally popularised the term, “speciesism” – he claims that is a proper “ism”, like racism, only discriminating against non-human animals. He doesn’t understand the difference between us and other animals.
As for not killing animals, there’s a problem. We cannot exist without killing animals. It is a fact of evolutionary life that we, like everything else, live at the expense of everything else. Survival of the fittest, etc. This prophet of the pathetic hasn’t apparently read Darwin or Spencer, or much else, evidently.
He was described by the Guardian thus: “The most dangerous man in the world” and “He’s a philosopher who eats no meat or dairy and thinks we’re no better than animals. In fact, he thinks a chimp has more right to exist than a person, and that killing babies can be justified” and “He is a Nazi, a reincarnation of Hitler’s deputy Martin Bormann, a baby killer, a philosophical hypocrite, and an enemy of civilisation”. Read it for yourself. And weep.
The man is a halfwit, and I use the term carefully. Let me explain. If you have a bag of grain and a choice between feeding ten profoundly disabled human babies or ten able-bodied chimpanzees, this fool thinks you should feed the ten chimpanzees because that will “produce the greatest good”. Are you surprised that the world’s people with disabilities are not too keen on him and tend to throw bits of their wheelchairs at him? Likewise Jewish people, who are a wee bit sensitive about killing unwanted people – and you thought comrade Corbyn was a bit suspect. Singer is the real thing. You see, the term “greatest good for the greatest number” is the description given to utilitarian philosophy, and he claims to be a utilitarian philosopher.
However, there are mental theories and ideas, known as “ideal”, but there is also reality – the real, material world. Thus, Singer is a theoretical or ideal utilitarian, but not a pragmatic utilitarian. More accurately, he is off with the fairies – the nasty fairies, but I digress. His is an interesting philosophical idea if you have nothing else in your life to think about in your ivory tower while you await your pension, but completely unacceptable in the real world, as Nazism proved. There is mind and body. His is a “proposal of the mind” that has no place in the other half, the “reality of the body”. Hence the term “halfwit”. Yet, his controversial tripe has brought him fame and fortune. Singer is still alive.
This misanthropic arse, then, is the bedrock of the mentally deranged global animal rights sect and revered Messiah of organisations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). Unsurprisingly, they too sell his poison, labelled as “animal welfare” – and it sells, all right. HSUS hoovers up some $140 million a year and IFAW hoovers up about $90 million. All from gullible animal lovers who think they are helping animal welfare. You won’t be saying goodbye to the last elephant when you give to HSUS, but you will be saying goodbye to your money.
So, “The importance of recognising animal sentience” is just some of the received wisdom of the all party animal “welfare” group APPGAW. Singer’s mental slurry then trickles downhill to the Conservatives in CAWF. From there, it seeps into our Conservative Government and, labelled sentience, it leaves skid-marks on our Animal Welfare Laws.
And who are the CAWF? After being told off for using the Conservative Party logo, they are at pains to explain that they are an independent group. Really? Let’s see… Chris Platt, CAWF founder is ex-Chair of the Surrey Conservatives. Lorraine Platt, CAWF founder is ex-CEO of Conservatives against fox hunting where she admitted getting finance from IFAW (above). Sophia Stileman, who worked on IFAW’s fur free Britain. Peter Mansbridge, ex-head of IFAW (UK). Lord “Zac” Goldsmith. Theresa Villiers MP. Sir Roger Gale MP and his missus, Lady Suzy. Henry Smith MP, Chairman for the All Party Parliamentary Group on Veganism and Vegetarianism. Carrie Johnson, Mrs Boris. John Flack, former MEP. Elise Dunweber, Chairman of Esher & Walton Conservative Women’s Organisation. Stanley Johnson, daddy of Boris. Tracey Crouch MP, and Chris Loder MP, a farmer and animal lover who should know better.
I invite you to visit their news page and see for yourself. Just about every “animal welfare” story on their website has an anti-efficient, environmental or vegetarian angle. Be warned, George Useless, MP, our Secretary of State for EFRA, is there, too. The way he’s going, it will soon be the only place he is welcome. It’s stomach-churning stuff. Independent group my foot.
What happened to the Conservative Code of Conduct? Particularly:
1. Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
2. Integrity – Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.
6. Honesty – Holders of public office should be truthful.
So now you know that your vague feelings that something is dicey with this government were well founded. Your radar switched on because something is wrong. There is a predator loose in Parliament. If you are connected with the land, you are connected with reality and your instincts now tell you that something is eating `away at the connection. Animal rights is a fundamentalist belief, busy replacing the extreme left wing failed Marxism. It has nothing to do with animal welfare. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin. Now, where once the communist “sharing our resources” confidence trick destroyed many millions of lives, the “sharing our planet” ravings of an Australian psycho have given rise to another global confidence racket, once again feeding on civilised people’s innate kindness. It has now seeped into UK law, a virus hiding inside animal welfare.
That is the route of contagion and the mentally afflicted super-spreaders who have carried this dangerous infection into our Parliament and into our statute books. It won’t bring you a better rural future or even a future, but at least you will know who put you out of business and destroyed the UK’s countryside, its wildlife and its traditional, rural way of life.
All because of a mad Australian’s brain fart.
John Nash grew up in West Cornwall and was a £10 pom to Johannesburg in the early 1960’s. He started well in construction project management, mainly high rise buildings but it wasn’t really Africa, so he went bush, prospecting and trading around the murkier bits of the bottom half of the continent. Now retired back in Cornwall among all the other evil old pirates. His interests are still sustainable resources, wildlife management and the utilitarian needs of rural Africa.
First Published In Country Squire Magazine