Cheltenham today

[Guest]

9 degrees was not conducive.

 

However, despite only two power fox ccoats, one of which was worn by a girl of about twenty, there were I counted 26 minks, three new arstrakhans on e worn beautifully with a silver fox stole, a few nice musquashes a stunning floor length sheared black mink, a few coneys, two moutons, and countless fox hats and collars/cuffs. One specially nice mink with fox sleeves too; and a lovely 70s vintage mink. Maybe a hundred quality faux furs too, and the same again shearlings.

 

So disappointing; but not so bad. Hope it's colder at the 4 day festival in March.

[lynxette]

Touch of Sable, I may have stated such before, but I just want to thank you for renewing my faith that it is okay to wear furs in Britain, at least in some areas. I was really getting worried there for a while based upon news I had heard and read.

[Guest]

Lynxette not only is it okay but actually people are actually wearing it as a statement against animal rights fascism. Yes you have to be careful where you wear it but that isn't becasue of antis but because of the politics of envy which this current government have made a national institution.

But I can promise you that here the backlash is well and truly underway.

 

Same with hunting which is why I bring it up so much....not to incite the antis here but to demonstarte the scale of resisitance, and the way it has gone from 80% of people wanting hunting banned to 69% of people wanting the Law repealled. Two million people hunting over christmas was incredible; nobody expected it. And you can bet that nearly all the women involved will be pro fur.

 

The big problem now will be that the RSPCA will shortly mount an anti fur campaign, and that could just incite the stupid dumbed down society to start having a go at women wearing fur. Hopefully though if the PETA prosecution is successful the RSPCA will be next in line themselves for harsh criticism.

 

The best thing about the fur revival here, be it not at street level, is the amount of younger women wearing it. It's the older women that are slow in getting them out of the wardrobe because they fear attack most.

[lynxette]

"Politics of Envy"...may I have permission to quote you in future Touch of Sable? I really like this one, as I have been convinced for quite some time that the real reason for PETA's objections to furs is not saving animals...their actions in North Carolina prove that...but rather objections to people having percieved wealth. As far as I know, I have never heard of PETA protesting Eskimos for wearing furs, only "rich" people. Problem with this is that the vast majority of people I know who own furs are not wealthy, and I am sure this would hold true for the majority as well.

[Guest]

Well Paul Mccartney certainly has a go at the Inuit. Ironic as he is the one that has made millions out of an essentially petro chemical industry.

 

But yes as far as many are concerned it is the fact that they do not see Paul MCartney as a welathy person because he looks so badly dressed. They look at women in fur or the guy with a ferrari.....both of which may as you say Lynxette have been bought cheaply on ebay and repaired etc and think rich b*****. It's perceived wealth. Me? I look at McCartney and think "Rich evil hypocritical b*****" .

 

It is the same with hunting ....Labour mps always say "rich toffs on horsback galloping round the countryside chasing a poor defenseless fox" as though it would be okay if they were not rich. For the record, I know very very few seriously rich people who Hunt. I know a Lord who lives in a council flat though.

 

Yes its the symbols of success they don't appear to like. Howver I look at a fur and think that that has somewhere along the line put money into a native culture or a fur farm which keeps loggers/oil/intensive arable agriculture etc out of the area.

[lynxette]

I just want to state for the record...and not for reasons of ploitical correctness, that the reason I used the term Eskimo in my previous post is that a close friend of mine is Eskimo, and that is the term she uses and prefers. Touch of Sable, this has nothing to do with you post, which was interesting to say the least...just thought I should be clear.

[Guest]

Indeed Eskimos are just one part of the Inuit nation. Eskimos do like being referred to as eskimos. Its the other few dozen peoples who share a similar culture and ethnicity that don't.

[LordTheNightKnight]

Lynxette not only is it okay but actually people are actually wearing it as a statement against animal rights fanaticism.

 

Fixed, because fascism involves a heavy amount of bureaucracy, while fanatacism needs no centralized government. Plus PETA is full of attention whores and power mongers, while fascism is mostly of the latter.

 

Yes, this seems like nitpicking, but the thing is, PETA can't send stormtroopers if we wear fur. We have the option to ignore them. True fascism can get is shot if we don't listen to them.

[lynxette]

Absolutely correct. Trouble is that so many people bow to actual or even perceived social pressure. I have had many people say to me that they are afraid to wear furs that they own simply because they MIGHT be harassed by someone. That is of course exactly the effect that PETA and other are trying to create, and all must play a part to make sure it does not prevail.

[Guest]

Ther are very secific reasons why I define PETA as Fascist.

 

A fanatic may not necessarily be interested in massive social change , or be Imperialist etc.

 

Here is why I describe PETA as fascist (with a small f).

 

PETA and the Animal Rights movement have many times staed their ultimate aim to be the extermination of all domesticated animals the world over. It would effectively require a New Order to establish, and extreme violence. It would mean for certain moral Imperialism; indeed it is already having that effect on the British and USA government as far as for example the Inuit are concerned. It is therefore racist too; ie that we are "enlightened" in the west (or are on our way there) and aboriginal peoples, the Chinese etc are savages.

 

It has a truly terrifying leader in the shape of Ingrid Newkirk; whose rantings about extermination of animals and reducing Human population are also worthy of a fascist. She has also participated in a mass killing of animals even before she was in PETA she was a dog exterminator. She has the vision of a "final solution" and practical experience...indeed posibly incorporated into its practise at its animal shelter...at carrying it out.

 

The AR movement also has its stormtroopers in the guise of the ALF , Hunt Saboteurs and others who do indeed use extreme violence and intimidation. Fishermen are even targetted in organised attacks:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2319142,00.html

 

Such groups have a pseudo pararmilitary structure; Hunt sabs have long used military terms and tactics. The ALF and others operating in cells of course use bombs and arson.

 

The movement is linked to a perverse ideology based on a fallacy, and just like the Nazis the logic that then flows from that demosntrates a purity of thought and sanctimony that means it followers feel justified in using violence to achieve their far reaching goals, and accept the instruction of the elite thinkers of the movement.

 

As there is also a clear link between the origin of Animal Rights ideology and Nazism. One of Hitlr's first Acts was to ban the cooking of lobsters and it was followed up by a ban on foxhunting. Hitler, like modern vegans, also forced his dogs to eat an unnatural vegetarian diet.

 

Then there is the use of propaganda, and especially that directed very simply in a mass youth movement which have to learn certain artilces of fiath and dissent is not tolerated . Just like Fascism, it turns the child against its family by represneting them as decadent and evil and ofering them new guidance (Your mommy kills animals campaign was typical fascist like propaganda).

 

Both fasicsm and the animal rights movement also desire subjegation of personal freedom and will to the New Order's Ideology, and both set out to censor free speech and expression, and destroy manifestaions of it. Burning books burning furs sabotage of events digging up corpses and desecrating graves of people that disagreed with them etc ect.

 

The word fanatic does not go far enough to describe the evils of the AR movement. To me a fanatic can be someone who follows a football club; not necesarily someone hell bent on world domination, radical social change, mass euthanasia , use of paramilitary violence supported and funded by The Leadership of PETA; a strong propaganda machine using base and emotive dialogue image and misinformation; with a strong Racist element (against aboriginal hunters and Islam (halal) for example.

 

Once again I also direct you to this piece by MArk Almond profssor of modern history at Oxford who draws the parallels too:

 

http://www.editrixoffice.com/sport_hitler.htm

 

Before the Fascist achieved power they acted exactly like the AR movement in supporting acts of violence and intimidation against certain sectors of society, and marketing their New Vision of the world by effective use of propaganda directed mainly toward young people; while all the time maintaining an element of repectability by using doctors, the media, and celebrities to tout their cause.

 

All that makes it fascistic to me. A fanatic sound like a madman acting alone interpreting a cause. Fascism celebrates the use of violence in support of their cause within its organisation , and will stop at nothing to see it through. It is organised and co ordinated fanaticism with a HUMAN order not one form a deity...another imporatnt distiction. What is Ingrid Newkirks moral authority? she is a fuhrer; not a prophet.

 

And if and when they achieve power, don't blame me when we all get rounded up put in a ghetoo and have to wear pinnned on badges/tattoos saying "Animal Abuser" on them. This is the future if they are not stopped in their tracks now by unifying every animal dependant economy, pet owner, hunter, fur wearer/fashion industry etc etc against them. If you doubt me go to the petakillsanimals or check them out on www.activistcash.com site and see for yourself the sinister nature of things they put forward.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Guest

[lynxette]

Sounds like a reasonably well thought out and documented argument to me.