CathNews - a Service of Church Resources

Describing animal rights campaigner group PETA as "occult", Bombala priest Fr Mick McAndrew has given his blessing to the act of sheep mulesing.

The Bombala Times reports Fr McAndrew is on a one man "mission" to protect his flock from the pro-vegetarian, anti-mulesing group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The preacher has blessed the act of removing skin around a sheep's tail to guard against flesh eating parasites.

He has told farming parishioners it is acceptable to lie about whether their wool comes from mulesed sheep so prices are not forced down by sanctions driven by PETA, which boasts 1.8 million members who believe animals are not supposed to be eaten, worn or used for entertainment.

"You can lie when an unjust organisation imposes sanctions or threats,” said Fr MacAndrew, who invoked the right of equivocation, where a person omits or misleads to protect the attack on their beliefs.

"PETA is dark, it's the occult."

The Bombala priest, aged in his late fifties, feared activists were muddying the world's natural law by condemning animal husbandry knowledge dating back thousands of years.

"Are we humans being reduced to nothing but animal status?" he asked.

"Who wants to end up a forced vegan for the rest of their lives?"

The part-time teacher pledged to educate pupils about the controversial farming practice when he tutors an agricultural science class next year.

The Catholic Church is yet to announce an official stance on mulesing although Pope Benedict has condemned battery hen farms, the paper says quoting a report from the The Land.

"PETA accuses many livestock farmers of cruelty," Fr MacAndrew said.

"Cruelty is against the law in Australia and the RSPCA monitors cruelty yet there's never been a prosecution against a woolgrower for mulesing.

"It's not a crime - mulesing is anything but cruel, cruel is the malicious and intentional intent to cause harm.

"It is carried out to prevent greater injury to the animal."

SOURCE

Father Mick defends our flock (Bombala Times, 6/6/08)

Have Your Say 

It may take up to 24 hours for your comment to appear on the website as it will be moderated. If you have any problems please email news@cathnews.com Email is requested for identification purposes only.
Name:
Email Address:
Comment:

Recent Comments

1. Oh Dear. Lying is acceptable? To protect one's income? Does this go for drug dealers and people traffickers as well? The RSPCA have never been about protecting the interests of farmed animals, they are only about the "protection" of domestic pets and animals the public perceive as 'cute'. And who is talking about 'forced veganism? This is alarmist nonsense. Rural people have enough silly mythology, which they use to justify excessive government handouts and a hugely irresponsible misuse of water etc. That this hideously cruel practice should be encouraged by a priest and that he also exhorts his parishioners to break a commandment is unbelieveable. Perhaps Father Mick needs to go to an urban parish for a little while for a dose of reality.

   Posted By: Bernie Brysha

2. Oh Brother, Father!!
   
   I’d have thought a ‘Christian’ might have been a little more compassionate toward his fellow animals. Are they not, in his church’s teaching, also God’s creatures?
   
   Leaving aside his lack of compassion, the fault in his reasoning is that he sees only two options – mules sheep or have them suffer from fly-strike. There are more – from spending more time (and money – that’s the catch isn’t it?) on monitoring and crutching to not farming these wrinkly Merino sheep at all.
   
   And why is it that he fears that giving greater respect to the interests of nonhumans somehow reduces the status of humans? Don’t we reach our greatest humanity when we treat others with respect and compassion?
   
   Like the good Father, I don’t want to be ‘forced’ into anything but I can heartily recommend veganism. I’d suggest he give it a try – he’ll save a lot of suffering as well as a lot of CO2 emissions.
   

   Posted By: Snyder

3. My understanding is that many Australian graziers have accepted that the world's wool-buying community opposes the cruelty of mulesing and that the best way forward is to stock with bare breech sheep. I can never understand why so many Christians, including many Catholics have this view of other creatures as simply here to serve our interests, whatever the cost in pain and suffering to those creatures. Surely there is a more compassionate way of living! What would St Francis say do you reckon?

   Posted By: EXA

4. Animals are part of God's creation and need to be treated humanely. Mulesing is a barbaric practice and an alternative can be sought to deal with these flesh eating parasites if there is sufficient economic pressure put on farmers. Not a nice picture Fr Mick! Angela

   Posted By: Angela McDonagh

5. Fr MacAndrew has no compassion or love in his blood, he must have been paid by the wool industry to smear humane groups like PETA who are working hard to make this world a better place for all beings....
   Shame on him!

   Posted By: Jessica Fewa

6. Thank you Fr McAndrew. I am the wife of a one time sheep farmer, whose fine wooled sheep were always mulesed to save them from being attacked from blowflies in hot humid weather. The procedure is practically painless to them after an hour or so, and much better than having to kill sheep who have been attacked by blowflies, and seeing the sheep's flesh eaten away by maggotts.
   How can a minority group which doesn't know what it is talking about, dictate to farmers how to farm their sheep?

   Posted By: Stephanie Kent

7. To be more precise, Father Mac should have said, it is moral to withhold a truth from someone who has forfeited the right to know it because (like PETA) he intends to use it for immoral purposes. This is not "lying".
   
   Jessica, PETA is by no means a "humane" group. They are an extremist anti-Christian group, cashed up with money extracted dishonestly from ignorant animal-lovers, which claims to see no difference between killing a sheep and killing a human being.
   
   The Church doesn't oppose circumcision, I'm sure it wouldn't oppose mulesing.
   
   And it's not correct to say Pope Benedict has officially condemned battery hen farms. He said once in a casual interview that he didn't agree with hens being packed in so tight in factories that they "are not really birds any more". Whether this is the case with ALL battery hens regardless of how much living space they have, is a matter of opinion. And he certainly wasn't delivering an official doctrine.

   Posted By: Ronk

8. This priest should look at the way Jesus lived and get back to basics about compassion and mercy. So many animals are enslaved and treated as production units. Brutality and cruelty are normal in our livestock industries these days, increasing production and making the products cheaper! Livestock farming, in most cases, is cruel and this industry assumes that animals have no feelings or pain and only exist to serve humans! Intensive farming is totally expoitative and shameful. The earth's original inhabitants, Adam and Eve, were vegan! This should be the Christian ideal, before sin came into the world!

   Posted By: Vivienne

9. I agree that PETA are a bunch of nutcases, but calling them an occult group is ludicrous. However, since the brother has already said that he will lie about anything he feels can promote some cause he has, it isn't surprising that here he is also lying to promote his "Resurrect the Burning Times" agenda. As an occultist, I am quite annoyed to be lumped in with the likes of PETA.

   Posted By: David Underwood

10. It is not difficult to understand why the Catholic Church is losing parishioners in droves when a) a priest actively promotes lies and animal cruelty, condemning animal protection groups in the process and b) your journal gives space to such appalling commentary.
    
    Mulesing is the lazy farmer's way out of caring properly for his/her sheep, and Stephanie Kent clearly is, or was, among those. It has taken PETA to expose this monstrously cruel procedure to the whole world. Even your picture says it all.
    
    The churches as a whole are remarkably reticent on cruelty to God's creatures, in intensive farming, slaughterhouses, experimentation, "culling" and worst of all, the live export trade. It is indeed sad that the churches apparently can find no compassion in their collective souls for the millions of animals who suffer so terribly for human greed.
    
    Shame on Father McAndrew. It will be a long time before I come back to a Catholic church.
    
    Suzanne Cass
    Hobart

    Posted By: Suzanne Cass

11. I will never has the slightest respect for PETA until they loudly proclaim their opposition to live sheep exports and send boats after such ships destined for Islamic countries and protest publicly in the way the Sea shepherds did at the Japanese whaling ships. PETA just do trendy causes. The immense suffering of the live sheep on ships is almost totally ignored by them. Hypocrites!!

    Posted By: Skye

12. Dear Friends of Cath News,
    please permit a right of reply from me regarding comments posted.
    Fr Mick Mac Andrew
    
    I replied at length to one person, so attach that as my reply to all.
    Particular thanks to Ronk for his advice on defining 'equivocation'.
    The amount of ignorance displayed by most of the posters shows sadly that Catholicism has definitely descended to the likes of DIY religion where anything goes these days.
    
    Dear ..............
    
    Thank you for taking the time to offer your opinion to me on my support for Australian woolgrowers, the animal husbandry practice of mulesing and my defence of ordinary, honest, believing and moral Australians against the immoral and occultic economic sabotage imposed on them by PETA.
    
    I ‘ll get straight to the point .......... Your opinion is just that, opinion and a very poorly constructed one at that.
    
    Emotive language, even the very best of vocabulary, cannot disguise your very base ignorance of the facts of these matters.
    
    It is appalling that you quote a lifetime of interest in things RSPCA but do not know the fact that the RSPCA has never contemplated a prosecution against a woolgrower for mulesing. Official RSPCA policy on the matter is quoted in the CSIRO Animal Welfare Issues Paper of 2004 – woolgrowers need to mules if they have to because of the risk of even greater suffering to sheep from flystrike.
    
    
    Maybe if you took the time to actually visit a sheep property, talk to the farmers and perchance witness the sufferings of a sheep affected by flystrike, just maybe, you might begin to understand that mulesing is a preventative action, yes, causing discomfort for a couple of days, but, like other forms of preventative animal husbandry, preventing even greater suffering, and almost certain death from flystrike.
    
    Too many self-opinionated and ignorant people know too little about mulesing, but peddle their ignorance and do PETA’s dark bidding.
    
    
    Mulesing consists of the removal of two small slivers of skin only, no flesh or muscle, the size of a man’s little finger. There is a little bleating, some blood, but immediately the procedure is over, the lambs rejoin the mother ewes in the paddocks.
    
    
    The need for anaesthesia or after-surgery pain killer sprays is debatable, the procedure is not unlike a human receiving a tattoo or even ear-piercing, where most people who have such a procedure do not request or even require medication.
    
    As for your moral charge of abject cruelty, why not read the Catholic Catechism and be acquainted with what truly constitutes such a charge. Again, eloquent ignorance should not be used to justify a false accusation against our woolgrowers.
    
    
    That PETA is of the dark and occultic, just read their web site www.peta.org, view the way they use pornographic movie stars to promote their creed that there should be absolutely no interdependence between humans and animals, see how they are encouraging young women especially to be skinny and unhealthy, see how they have hijacked the word ‘holocaust’ from alerting us about the presence of evil and what it did through NAZISM and apply it to eating meat. Occultism is essentially persuading people to turn away from God and God’s Right Ordering in Creation and turn to sinister powers that seek the ruination rather than the advancement of humanity. Such is Ingrid Newkirk and PETA and other Animal Liberationist and Animal Rights groups.
    
    
    PETA will not stop at attacking innocent, hardworking, moral and honest woolgrowers, it will continue to proclaim a creed of darkness and confusion until God’s plans for Creation have been fogged over by an obsession with animals to the exclusion of Christ’s command “Love one another as I have loved you”.
    
    
    Ingrid Newkirk has stated “a pig is as a boy is as a dog” in justifying her dark understanding of the place of human beings, not at the centre or the crowning of a divine plan for the triumph of love in creation, but to push a new self-loathing on the human race in these challenging times of global warming, a loathing which the Devil often unleashes upon the world to promote chaos, prejudice and hatred.
    
    
    Of course, the most loathsome of the Devil’s disciples in this matter is Australian, Peter Singer, who espoused an attempt at justifying ‘animal rights’. His most infamous outburst concerns a denial of the hierarchical order of God’s Creation – “a child who is mentally ill should be killed off in preference to a healthy pig, who deserves not to be killed for bacon.”
    
    
    If you care to truly inform your conscience on these and other matters, especially before you get together at the next tea and bikkies RSPCA meeting to condemn my support of innocent hardworking, believing and moral Australian woolgrowers, why not read about the Catholic teachings on these matters at www.catholiceducation.org, the world’s paramount institute for Catholic ethics on animal welfare issues.
    
    
    
    faithfully
    
    

    Posted By: Fr Mick Mac Andrew

13. I disagree with Fr MacAndrew, who needs to read his scriptures before saying it is ok to cut skin from young lambs. Flystrike is due to weather conditions, humidity, and blowflies. Also due to the manipulation of creating the extra wrinkled skin for the finer wool. Nutrition also plays a huge part in whether a sheep becomes flystruck. A merino requires almost double the amount of nutrition than a normal meat sheep due to the extra wool follicles per square inch. If the diet is lacking in sulphur then parasites such as flies and lice will attack sheep. If the diet is lacking in too much copper sulphate then sheep develop internal parasites. Australian soils in many places are depleted of sulphur. My soil tests show no sulphur in the soil at all, so I provide what is needed. When I had superfine merinos, I never had flystrike, but once, and that was a crossbred. Mulesing is cruel and if there is an alternative it should be used. As for telling parishioners they can lie about their wool. I hope I never meet any of those parishioners as one lie always leads to another.

    Posted By: Marilyn Mangione

14. OK, I see now. The priest is using some here-to-fore non-existent definition of the word "occult" in order to scare people into believing his cause, much the same way a politician would do. Here padre, this is the entry for "occult" from dictionary.com.. You might want to learn what words mean before you use them.
    
    1. of or pertaining to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies.
    2. beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious.
    3. secret; disclosed or communicated only to the initiated.
    4. hidden from view.
    5. (in early science) a. not apparent on mere inspection but discoverable by experimentation.
    b. of a nature not understood, as physical qualities.
    c. dealing with such qualities; experimental: occult science.
    
    6. Medicine/Medical. present in amounts too small to be visible: a chemical test to detect occult blood in the stool.
    –noun 7. the supernatural or supernatural agencies and affairs considered as a whole (usually prec. by the).
    8. occult studies or sciences (usually prec. by the).
    –verb (used with object) 9. to block or shut off (an object) from view; hide.
    10. Astronomy. to hide (a celestial body) by occultation.
    –verb (used without object) 11. to become hidden or shut off from view.
    
    
    But maybe you can point out to me where, in the actual definition of that word it mentions anything you said it meant about "persuading people to turn away from God and God’s Right Ordering in Creation and turn to sinister powers that seek the ruination rather than the advancement of humanity"
    
    Grow up already, priest.
    
    

    Posted By: David Underwood

15. While I am unsure of the ethics and motivation of PETA, I am grateful to Fr Mick for your article in favour of sheep mulesing. I grew up on a sheep farm and witnessed first-hand the horrors of blow-fly strike. Anything that can be done to alleviate this is a very good thing, including mulesing, which is done as quickly and painlessly as possible when the lambs are young and their skin quickly grows over the mulesed area. It is good to consider alternatives to mulesing but for lambs born with wrinkles around their tails this is the best option to greatly reduce their prospects of fly-strike. I feel farmers should be judged by PETA and others on how well they care for their flocks overall - not just on one aspect of their animal husbandry which many like myself would disagree with PETA and say is in the best interests of the sheep concerned. If pain for the sheep involved is PETA’s primary concern, they may wish to explore ways a local anaesthetic could be easily administered to lambs prior to mulesing or alternately a way that blow-flies could be eradicated so we wouldn’t have this problem – or might this be cruel and inhumane to the flies ?

    Posted By: Fr John Monaghan, Quambatook

16. David Underwood, according to your definition #1 of "occult", Catholicism and all other religions are "occult, as they are certainly systems claiming use or knowledge of supernatural powers or agencies.
    
    Though the description may at first seem startling to those who have been lulled by PETA's well-funded propaganda machine into thinking it is an organisation of warm and fuzzy animal lovers, PETA certainly has both the deceptive secrecy and the evil aims implied in the description "occult". Its very name is a lie. It is not about the "ethical treatment of animals" at all. It extracts millions from well-meaning and unthinking people who are duped into thinking their money and support will "stop cruelty to animals". In fact PETA is an anti-Christian, anti-human organisation, dedicated to bringing about a world in which man is merely a particularly intelligent animal, with all the evils that implies including total disregard for human dignity and rights, and asserting that animals have supposed "rights". They do not. As Father says, read the catechism. Cruelty to animals is wrong because it infringes human dignity, not because of any imagined "rights" of the animals.
    
    If you want to help animals, support a reputable and genuine animal welfare organisation (and the RSPCA does the vast majority of its work in the bush, contrary to the ignorant abuse from Mr Brysha who himself needs "a dose of reality"), not the evil and mendacious PETA.
    Better yet, instead of wondering whether some farmer somewhere might be causing pain to his sheep, try putting your time and money into something that really challenges the way you live and is far more important and serious, such as stopping the deliberate murder of 100,000 Australian babies every year.
    
    I suggest it is Ms Mangione who needs to "read the scriptures". Not every case of concealing a truth is a sin against the 8th commandment ("Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST THY NEIGHBOUR.") An evil intent and/or effect is required. If communist soldiers asked you if a priest was hiding in your house, would you answer "yes he's right in that room over there" simply because it's the truth?

    Posted By: Ronk

17. david underwood .... read your own definitions ie point 3 and 4. Pretty straight forward i would have thought.
    
    re this para:
    
    "You can lie when an unjust organisation imposes sanctions or threats,” said Fr MacAndrew, who invoked the right of equivocation, where a person omits or misleads to protect the attack on their beliefs... "
    
    Fr Mick, does this take you out of context or not? Reading Ronk's post leads me to think that you're probably owed an apology by CN.

    Posted By: Chris Saidou

18. PETA may have evil ultimate goals, but God used
    Babylon to enforce the ignored land sabbath laws,
    70 years of captivity to make up for 70 such
    violations.
    
    And cruelty to animals is denounced in Scripture, in
    Proverbs kindness to animals is linked to righteousness, and there are other hints God has a
    relationship with animals. We were only given the
    right to kill and eat them in Noah's time, and sacrifice of an animal to a false god qualified as
    bloodguilt i.e., murder.
    
    This mulesing practice is cruel, and obviously will
    draw flies and maggots. I wonder if the practice
    originated with people who have a perverse use for
    the flesh taken?

    Posted By: Mary Christine Erikson

19. I agree 110% with Fr McAndrew. I notice how some liberal Catholics , not schooled in the classics and tradition, are siding with these irrational people.
    No satisfaction in responses needs be provided to these people- ever. So Fr McAndrew's advice to avoid giving them answers is terrific !!
    Fr McAndrew, you have made my day !

    Posted By: Michael Webb

20. Father McAndrew must indeed be flexible in his dissemination of the truth. The RSPCA's website in fact says that it does NOT accept mulesing as an acceptable husbandry procedure.
    
    It must be a growing complaint amongst the Catholic clergy too. There are alternatives to mulesing which include more frequent crutching and better monitoring of your animals. In short, don't have more than you can properly care for. If you must carry out "husbandry" procedures, there are anaesthetics and analgesics available; it is simply that they COST, and there steps in the greed motive.
    
    You cannot castrate, brand, mules or otherwise mutilate companion animals as you do farm animals, or you would be prosecuted.

    Posted By: Catherine Cooke

21. Ronk and Chris Saidou, I see what you are saying in your responses to my previous post, however, that is not really the point i was trying to make... I don't care one bit about PETA. I was trying to point out that the priest was using the word occult to imply that PETA is evil... which it very well may be, but the word "occult" does not mean evil. The posts that the priest put up are already there, simply re-read the parts where he uses the word and you will see that he meant evil when he said occult.

    Posted By: David Underwood

22. Catherine Cooke, you are being more than "flexible in dissemination of the truth". Your assertion that "The RSPCA's website in fact says that it does NOT accept mulesing as an acceptable husbandry procedure." is a barefaced lie.
    
    In fact the RSPCA website (http://www.rspca.org.au/mediareleases/mrshow.asp?ID=10) says "the RSPCA considers mulesing a necessary means of eliminating or minimising the pain and suffering caused by flystrike." They even go out of their way to dissociate themselves from any campaign against mulesing: "The RSPCA is not aligned with any current public campaign by any animal rights organisation regarding the mulesing of sheep." You owe Fr MacAndrew (and us) an apology.
    
    And guess what, my "companion animal" cat is both castrated and branded, and no-one has tried to prosecute me for it. Get a grip.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

23. David Underwood, it is true that as a term used in astronomy and in medical pathology, "occult" can mean simply "hidden". However in general use it certainly does mean "using evil supernatural forces". The fact that most PETA supporters, even perhaps some of its leaders, are not aware of any diabolical connexions does not mean that they are not there. Very few people voluntarily seek a pact with the Devil, they unwittingly fall into the traps he has set, designed to appear as superficiallly harmless or even good activities.
    
    You describe yourself as an "occultist". Apparently a dupe of the so-called "religion" invented as a money-making venture in the 1950s and inventing the outrageous claim that the so-called "witches" whom protestants of the 16th to 18th centuries killed were members of the same "religion". The oafish way you have addressed Fr MacAndrew, and the outrageous lies you have told about him, (e.g."the brother [sic] has already said that he will lie about anything he feels can promote some cause he has"), show that you are in league with the Father of Lies, whether you realise it or not. Occultism is NOT a harmless diversion, much less a "religion". (See e.g. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007fea4.asp). Get out of it NOW whilst you still can.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

24. Ronk, occultism is not a religion. I am a gnostic Christian. and as far as the "outrageous lies" you say I have said about the priest are concerned... the only thing I said was A.) he has a poor working definition of the word "occult" and B.) that he is perfectly willing to lie when it benefits him. Here is a quote from the article with which I can back up that last bit.
    "You can lie when an unjust organisation imposes sanctions or threats,” said Fr MacAndrew, who invoked the right of equivocation, where a person omits or misleads to protect the attack on their beliefs.
    
    Now, go have a drink and calm down.

    Posted By: David Underwood

25. Father Mick should read his dictionary. "Cruel (oo), n. Indifferent to, delighting in, another's pain: showing such indifference or pleasure: painful, distressing. Hence or cogn. -ly. adv.,". Of course that's just the Oxford Dictionary. Perhaps Fr. Mick has a higher source.
    
    Mulesing graziers generally are indifferent to the pain of mulesd sheep, they have to be to do it and it is obviously a painful and distressing operation for the sheep.
    
    Perhaps Fr. Mick should also read his Bible. Isaiah 66.3. "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man ...". Genesis 2.29. is a another good source of enlightenment. "And God said, behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed: to you it shall be for meat. Genesis2. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat."
    
    Seems like God doesn't share Fr Mick's contempt for vegans (or animals).
    
    Meat eating came later (after the Flood - see Gen. 9.3 ant that was because of the, "evil of man's heart".
    
    PETA have good scriptural as well as humanitarian support for their point of view and are very far from being, "occult".
    
    As to the RSPCA they are understaffed and underfunded and not able to enforce all the laws respecting animal welfare. In any case, as Fr Mick says, mulesing is not against the law and that is why there has never been a presecution for mulesing.
    
    As to encouraging people to lie to support their point of view, if anything is, "dark", and, "occult", that is.

    Posted By: Sandra John

26. You're still doing it, Underwood. Fr MacAndrew said (as he kindly stated that I put it better than the reporter did) that it is moral to withhold a truth from someone who has forfeited the right to know it because (like PETA) he intends to use it for immoral purposes. This is not "lying". He certainly did not say that he is "perfectly willing to lie when it benefits him". He receives no benefit regardless of whether this occult organisation succeeds in driving the sheepfarmers out of business or not. If they all go broke and have to walk off their land and Bombala becomes a ghost town, the bishop will post him somewhere else. There will always be plenty of work for priests, he doesn't have to worry about making sure he has a flock to attend to.
    

    Posted By: Ronk

27. Dear Friends of CathNews
    I am heartened by the contuing comments concerning "PETA is of the occult" article which appeared the week before last.
    Heartened, because the comments are uncovering a great deal of false understanding and hidden rebellion in many people who would regard themselves as Catholics and Christians.
    I don't intend to name and debate individuals as my objective is not to wage a battle against individuals, save those leaders of PETA and other animal rights and animal liberation groups who have sold their souls to the devil.
    The rebellion that is evident in the arguments that many who have taken exception to my identifying PETA with the occult have resorted to the misuse of dictionary definitions of the words 'cruel' and 'occult', but in the same post they reveal a poverty of understanding the issue when they accuse, without any evidence at all, farmers of cruelty, laziness, money grabbing. When the devil is attacked, his forces engage in character assasination to cloud the issue and prevent a proper investigation of the matters.
    I will say out in the open, PETA is of the occult, one of the manifestations of true evil showing its hand today.
    The results of PETA and other animal rights and animal liberation groups and PETA's president Ingrid Newkirk and the 'spiritual father' of animal rights, Australian philosopher Peter Singer, is widespread, not only affecting innocent, moral, hardworking, believing farmers, but also, all of us.
    As evidence I invite everyone to examine the way Global Warming is being handled. Not only do we have to contend with the scientific facts of this as we enter one of the cycles of the life of the planet, exacerbated by our overuse of fossil fuels these past three hundred years, but we have to contend with the politics, culture and 'new age religion' of climate change, where fiction reigns over fact, where hidden powers are being called on to override the common good and a new elitism is being developed which will not only impose huge costs on the poor - especially in underdeveloped countries, but will impose an unjustified, self-loathing on all humankind as the forces of darkness try to turn us away from God and God's work with humankind.
    Just view many of the nature programmes being televised at the moment, apologetic in design for the politics of climate change, 'it's all the fault of the human race'. Note too the anti-human campaign against population increase, the aggressive pro-abortion campaigns, the evil behind various 'save the planet, save the whale, save the rainforests overseas, save the whatever, but hands off my airconditioners, my LCD TV my lifestyle, I don't care about the people in the Sudan, in Africa, it's their choice to live in poverty'. Note too, the decline in charity and assistance programmes in western nations directed to people in underdeveloped nations. Note too, the rise in donations and money allocated by governments to causes which will preserve a few hundred animals whose 'evolutionary window of opportunity' is almost over, resources which will neither prevent the 'passing' or extinction of those creatures, but, in proportion to the resources spent on assisting poor people in underdeveloped nations, those decisions are morally sinful. That is the extent of the operation of the occult in these matters - animals are bein