The first time I saw this article it had been posted
to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA)-Animal Talk E-mail List.
I wrote Patti Strand at NAIA and ask if she could help me
contact the author for his permission to post it to our web site.

Therefore, with the permission of Daniel G. Jennings, author of the article, we present, for your educational reading...

Who is Peter Singer
and Why Should you care about him?

An arrogant observation by Daniel G. Jennings,
arrogant observer and defender of freedom.

Who is Peter Singer and why should you care about him? Simple, Peter Singer, maybe the most dangerous man in the world today. Singer, could be the most dangerous man in the world, because he is the stupid and misguided fool leading a vicious and mindless assault on human rights and the idea of freedom itself.

The vast majority of you, don't know who Singer is and there is no reason you should know. Singer is a philosopher, a professor at a university in Melbourne Australia who is currently a visiting lecturer at Princeton. He also wrote the article on ethics in the current Encyclopedia Britannica.

Singer, judging by his writings, is also a complete idiot, but a large portion of the world's intellectuals are hailing him as a genius and an expert on ethics and philosophy. Therein lies the danger, Singer is promoting a set of ideas that if applied to the real world will lead to complete and total disaster.

Singer, could be the most dangerous man in the world, because he is the blindman leading the rest of the blind straight over the edge of a cliff. This wouldn't be so bad, except that these blind people want to take the rest of us along with them on their journey over the cliff.

Singer's ludicrous ideas include that of Animal Liberation. In his most important work to date, Singer "Animal Liberation" Singer advanced the moronic argument that animals are entitled to the same rights as human beings.

Singer has claimed that the raising of animals for food is the moral equivalent of slavery or the Nazi Holocaust. He has termed the owning and exploitation of animals by human beings "enslavement," and even coined a stupid term "specieism" to describe the belief that human beings are superior to animals. Singer claims that mistreating animals is the equivalent of racism. Singer claims that human beings are not superior to animals and that human beings have no moral right to use animals as food, draft animals, pets or subjects in medical experiments.

Singer has compared factory farms raising chickens, pigs and cattle to concentration camps and even called pigs intelligent. This has led to violence against fur farms, researchers conducting medical experiments designed to save human lives, farmers, butcher shops, ranchers, etc. It has led to efforts to ban circuses because they involve tricks conducted by animals.

Singer is the father of the animal rights movement, animal rights activists have conducted terrorist acts against farmers, scientists, fur farmers and others. These idiots have set off bombs, shot at hunters, set buildings on fire, and mailed razor blades to people who disagree with their sick beliefs.

To make matters worse, Animal rights ideas are being enacted into law. Cities such as Seattle have banned circuses and rodeos because they're cruel to animals. Congress has considered bans on animal testing. The trapping of animals has been banned or restricted even though it might be necessary to public safety and the environment.

Singer's argument about animal rights makes a mockery of the idea of human rights. Human beings are superior to animals, they do think and do many things that animals can't. They write constitutions, create literature, invent machines, come up with scientific theories, tell jokes, create art, create music, write societies, organize societies and do much more.

No animal can do these things. Nor can any animal demand its rights, human beings can and do. Even the most ignorant kindergarten student can see Singer's argument is garbage. Yet it is now accepted as the cutting edge of ethics and philosophy by intellectuals throughout the world. If this wasn't bad enough, Singer has made other idiotic pronouncements. He has said that some animals have had a greater right to exist than many human beings and in a work called Practical Ethics claimed that retarded, deformed and ill babies should be put to death because they are a burden on the human race.

This is the same argument adopted and promoted by the Nazis and put into practice by them. Historians estimate that a Nazi program of Euthanasia or mercy killing directed at the retarded, mentally ill and disabled killed around 200,000 people. It was based on many of the same arguments Singer makes.

Singer also promotes the utterly moronic idea that people who have committed the crime of being born or living in advanced nations have a moral duty to donate much of their income to poor and starving people in "underdeveloped nations." In other words Singer believes people are committing a crime because they are living well because they happen to live in a country whose government has adopted sensible and effective economic policies. This makes about as much sense as branding people criminals because their parents or grandparents went to a Synagogue instead of a church. Yet, the man hailed as a great philosopher finds it desirable.

Singer claims that the people of America, Europe, Japan and other developed nations are responsible for poverty and starvation in the so called Third World. This is not true the poverty in those nations was caused by the bad economic policies adopted by those nations leadership or by the colonial exploitation of those nations by other nations.

For example the much publicized starvation in Ethiopia was caused by that nation's now deposed and Soviet supported Communist dictatorship.

The widespread poverty in India was caused largely by the now discredited socialist policies of the Congress Party which adopted the ideas of British socialists and deliberately suppressed capitalism in that nation.

Recent food shortages in Cuba are solely the result of Fidel Castro's arrogant dictatorship.

Singer's argument that people in prosperous nations should donate much of their income to famine and poverty relief for poor nations is stupid. The poverty and hunger in those nations are not the fault of people in prosperous nations, it is almost solely the result of the policies adopted by those nations governments. Poorer nations that have adopted sensible economic policies and political regimes have prospered and advanced. The sad truth is that policies in which money is transferred to poorer nations by richer nations, actually hurts poorer nations.

If third world governments can rely on the gravy train from Washington they have no incentive to reform. If a third world dictator can rely on aid shipments from Uncle Sam he has no incentive to adopt a sensible economic policy or reforms that could lead to progress and prosperity. The dictator can squander his resources on yachts and Royals Royces while handing out U.S. grain to the mob. The dictator can also sell the grain, then use the proceeds to pay mercenaries to keep himself in power and buy weapons for those mercenaries. Worse, much of this aid finds it way straight back to the pockets of the politicians in the first world in the form of bribes and campaign contributions. Since this money is usually placed in overseas bank accounts politicians have little fear that the press will find out about it and report it. This aid is also a form of corporate welfare, much of the food is purchased from agribusiness which Singer supposedly opposes. Agribusiness makes big bucks, politicians make big bucks and the poor in the third world are still stuck in poverty.

Singer's ideas, if applied, would make the gap between rich and poor nations worse. Poor nations would have no incentive to adopt reforms that would better their people's lot, while the hardworking people of richer nations would see much of their money poured down a sinkhole from which it would never return. Worse, the leaders of the third world have piles of cash to squander upon yachts, Rolls Royces, mansions and the gambling tables at Monte Carlo.

Singer himself claims to donate much of his income to "relief organizations" that purport to help the poor in less developed nations. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these organizations have bettered the condition of any poor person in any less developed nation. There is much evidence; however, that many relief organization officials draw huge salaries and live the good life on the non-taxable donations they receive. Many of which, are taken from poor, elderly and working class people who are barely able to support themselves. Many, if not most, of the people in charge of the relief organizations are con artists ripping off the poor and elderly. Most of the money donated to these organizations goes into the bank accounts of the executives who run them not the poor children in the third world.

Since Singer's beliefs are nonsense and easily dispelled by common sense, the average man and woman out there working for a living might ask: why should I care about Peter Singer? Because people are listening to him, the worst kind of people. Arrogant, overfed and stupid intellectuals. People who have no experience of the real world, people who have never worked for a living or had to worry about where the next paycheck is coming from. People who have never known want or oppression.

Yet, these people who are making many of the decisions in our society. Many educated people believe that Singer is a great man even though he has never done anything constructive in his life. Never created anything or made a worthwhile contribution. Singer is an ignorant fool. There is nothing great about him, yet he is honored and admired and his thinking is used as a guideline to the future of our society. That in itself should be frightening. Still, many people out there ask why should I care about this crackpot university professor named Peter Singer? Sure his ideas are stupid but no SANE person will listen to them.

Well, what if in the year 1880, somebody had asked a 19th Russian businessman why should you worry about some crackpot German intellectual living in London named Karl Marx? Marx after all had labeled private property evil. The Russian businessman would have said, "I don't give a damn about this Marx guy. He's a nut nobody in their right mind will listen to him." Within forty years, thugs claiming to be putting Marx's ideas into practice, were forcing Russians to give all of their land and property to the Bolshevik regime. Within fifty years Russians who owned too much property were being murdered by Marxists.

Or what if in the year 1880 somebody had told some rich German or Austrian Jew that within fifty years your children and grandchildren will be murdered because you tolerated anti-Semitic cranks within your midst. In the late 19th century anti-Semitism became respectable in Germany; an anti-Semitic crank was even allowed to serve as the personal chaplain to Germany's Emperor, Kaiser William II. Within fifty years, an anti-Semitic crank, Adolph Hitler, was absolute leader of Germany and having Jews murdered because of those crackpot ideas.

If forty years from now, cattle ranchers find themselves being burned at the stake by Animal Rights activists or middle-class Americans have their homes seized and auctioned off to pay for the King of Zimbabwe's new private space shuttle, they'll have only themselves to blame for tolerating Peter Singer in their midst. I'm not saying that Peter Singer doesn't have a right to hold and promote his idiotic ideas. He does. I'll defend Singer's right to hold his opinions and voice them to the death. I'm saying that no sane society would allow somebody like Singer who attacks its basic ideas to serve in an important position at a distinguished institution of higher learning.

In a sane society, Peter Singer would be manning the cash register at Waldenbooks and spreading his ideas on the Internet in his spare time. What I'm saying is this, it's time that everybody who donates money to an institution of higher learning find out what kind of courses are taught there and what individuals are tolerated there. I have no problem with Singer's books in Princeton's library, the university allowing him to give a guest lecture there, or his ideas being studied in a class there, as one possible alternative. What I hate is a great American University endorsing and promoting a man who proudly repudiates everything America stands for and promotes ideas that threaten the livelihood and the very life of the average man. That is exactly what Peter Singer is doing. Singer has a right to promote his ideas, but we have a right not to give money to those who promote Singer's ideas.

If every rich American who disagreed with Singer and his moronic beliefs called the President of Princeton tomorrow and said they wouldn't donate any money to the university until Singer was gone, within a few hours, security guards would escort Singer off the campus and tell him never to come back.

The vast majority of the intellectual elite who hold ideas similar to Singer's would quickly change their minds, and Singer would be only of interest to philosophers and students of philosophy. If that happened, I wouldn't be at all surprised that within a few weeks or months Singer himself would publish articles retratcting all of his beliefs and begin giving lectures and writing books refuting everything he had said before. It has often happened before in human history when pressure was applied to self-proclaimed men of ideas, especially soft ones who've never had to work for a living. Unfortunatley, I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

Singer will go right on spreading his crackpot ideas until he dies or society collapses around him because some morons listened to him and tried to put those ideas into practice. Those who are paying no attention to Peter Singer and his ilk today, may end up being very sorry in the future.

Back to MoFed
Home Page