Cock fighting is perfectly legal, and encouraged in Puerto Rico. Government fees have forced much of it underground, but few are calling for a crackdown, except for organizations such as PETA. According to Yahoo news:
In fact, the territory’s government is battling to keep the blood sport thriving, as many matches go underground to avoid fees and admission charges levied by official clubs. Although long in place, those costs have since become overly burdensome for some as the island endures a fifth year of economic crisis.
The business once generated $100 million a year in revenue for government-owned clubs across the U.S. territory, among the few places in the world where such fights remain legal. Recent figures are unavailable, but many say revenue at such clubs has plummeted…
Nowhere else is cockfighting allowed on U.S. territory, although many matches still take place in secret. Terry Mills, who investigates blood sports for the New York-based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the group opposes all cockfights regardless of whether they are held in legal or illegal venues.
To be sure, there are people all over the world who oppose unnecessary cruelty to animals. But, for the most part, this sentiment is part of the modern Western Civilization package* – that also includes concern for the rights of homosexuals, women, children, the environment and the darker races.
Though they do not know it, supporters of PETA are touting the superiority of modern Western (white) civilization over others. For them to champion the rights of animals and, at the same time, be supporters of multiculturalism/mass immigration, is a gross contradiction. My guess is that most of them simply do not think these matters through.
I was curious about PETA’s stance on immigration, so I checked out their website (not really expecting to find anything on immigration). In all honesty, I fully agree with a lot of what they say (crazy as they are when it comes to certain issues) and I give them credit for taking the high moral ground. This is from the FAQ section:
If having superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?
There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability, for example. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights? Nineteenth-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?” The measure of who deserves protection is not intelligence, it is the capacity to feel pain.
It’s a good point, though my position is a bit different. But I do wonder about their position on insects. They make it perfectly clear that we should avoid lethal measures to control them, but it is not, as far as I know, clear that insects experience pain and suffering. Perhaps somebody can correct me on this. I found it interesting that they include, in their FAQ’s, section called What about insects and other “pests”? but they don’t seem to assign any rights to creatures so small the human eye cannot see them. In other words, if humans can see you, you have rights. Otherwise, you’re out of luck! How do they reconcile the rights of diarrhea bacteria with the rights of blacks in Africa? Sure, blacks are smarter – but what if it turns out microbes can suffer?
Also in their FAQ section”Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?”
However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in the theory of relativity, does that mean we should not believe in it? What if Gandhi also believed in the theory of relativity—how would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits.
Of course. Now let’s apply this principle to more controversial matters, such as racial and ethnic differences. It will be a cold day in Hell when PETA does this. Still, it seems to me that PETA is more rational than many other leftist organizations. We can learn from their tactics. For example, they refuse to take a stance on gun-control except where it pertains to hunting animals. Otherwise, they’re neutral. That’s exactly the position pro-whites should take on issues such as homosexuality. They use imaginative tactics, such as nudity, in their campaigns to draw attention to their message. Imagine the publicity we could get if hundreds of pro-whites marched nude with signs proclaiming how happy they are with their white skin, and that “hate” is not part of their philosophy.
But back to multiculturalism. PETA actually does take a stance on this. There’s a question, in the FAQ called “What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?”:
The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated job retraining and restructuring. This is simply an ingredient in all social progress—not a reason to deter progress.
In other words, they admit that not all cultures are equal. It’s a start.
* It’s possible that Iberia was culturally damaged from its long Moor occupation. The same might be said of Russia from its Mongol occupation.
