In nature, there is no such thing as “rights”. That means, there are no human rights, either. Rights are bestowed upon citizens of a society who have agreed to the social contract inherent to that society. Animals do not possess this agency as we do. There are no “rights”, only privileges.

“Animal rights” is a feminine contrivance. This goes right back to chaos and order — penis envy — the female Animus. Women deal in terms of “rights” and circumvention of merit — they deal in entitlements. This is exactly what Judaism is — feminine qualities — entitlement and deceit.

Aside from the fact that the news anchor cunt saw the need to go “Press 2 for Spanish” in her pronunciation of the word “halal”, the controversy here is obviously about being a savage as opposed to being humane as well as superimposing a fictional construct of rights which do not exist as normative standards.

“Animal Rights”, as it is inappropriately dubbed by women, (it is actually Animal Welfare) under the Third Reich was of great importance, because the way an animal is treated before it hits the kitchen and then your plate matters.

The hormonal and chemical secretions of livestock under stressful conditions, yields deleterious outcomes such as developing cancers and ulcers. Not only is this unhealthy for consumers, but it is not economically prudent for the farmer. People today are just much more health and cruelty conscious and not minding the welfare of livestock is counterproductive. Think in terms of myths surrounding slavery that we know, where we were taught that slaves were terribly beaten by their masters who invested large sums to purchase them in the first place, only to ill treat them when they were expected to produce to make a profit. On the contrary, their wellbeing was a priority, because anything outside of that would not be economically sound. This point is more salient when you understand many slave owners took out loans to purchase slaves.

It is ironic how what Hitler advocated for over 70 years ago, is now resurfacing and being rebranded as “anti-semitic” and “anti-immigration”. In addition, Hitler’s position is being misconstrued as “Animal Rights” and the Jewess is using the same arguments as Hitler, yet makes it seem as though it is brand new — her original idea and argument! To reiterate, the Jewess in the news segment takes on the exact, same arguments and position Hitler did — that it isn’t merely about how the livestock is killed, but how it is reared and cared for is also of tremendous importance. This, too, applied to experimentation on animals. He banned vivisection and developed more humane ways for slaughtering and animal experimentation, thus the stun method and many others that are adjudged by today’s standards to be humane.

So, Hitler advocated for (Animal Welfare), which is, being less cruel to animals, especially those we consume. There is a scientific practicality behind it as mentioned earlier, that he and other scientists understood. As a matter of fact, we today use the same practicality when we purchase foods such as eggs that are “caged” versus “free range” versus “pasture range“.

Yet, somehow, the Jewess, Goldstein, uses Hitler’s position on animal cruelty to spin the narrative as anti-semitism, when in actuality, there is a misrepresentation of Hitler’s “Animal Welfare” to feminine bullshit, “Animal Rights”. She attempts to lump both together which is exactly what women do, then castigate one without acknowledging the parallel in her argumentation to Hitler’s.

“Animal Rights” and “Animal Welfare” are not the same! There is no such thing as “Animal Rights”. We can discuss “Animal Welfare” and cruelty to animals, for sure.

What we are observing here is the absurdity of the feminine coming home to roost. The revolution is eating its own.