Why "OpPeta" Really REALLY Sucks Ass

The small Twitter klatch referring to themselves as a faction of "Anonymous," has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that sometimes "Anonymous" attacks are simply about shitting on someone else. Literally. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/uploads/1/6/8/4/16840972/9833478_orig.png

"Operation PETA," or "OpPeta" is less an "operation" of the brand name "Anonymous," and more of an "People Eating Tasty Animals" opportunity to fuck with PETA, so in the interest of accuracy, this writer will refer to the clusterfuck previously known as "OpPeta" and "The Klatch," in the following terms: "Opportunity to fuck with PETA," or simply as "the opportunists." http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/the-curious-case-of-oppeta.html

Midst a prolifery of Tweets about PETA's various "hypocrisies," is the occasional claim that the opportunists "are not attacking activists," but rather "attacking corporate bullies," and doing it in the interest of preserving their "rights," and the "rights" of their so-called "comrades." Well, the opportunists are going to have to strap on their pretty little frilly hats now, because this bitch is about to take them to church.

I mean, for fuck's sake let's be truthful. There's a WORLD of difference between a "corporation" and a "non-profit corporation," whether it's convenient for the opportunists to admit it under the current circumstances or not. An example of a "corporation" would be, say, Smithfield, or Cargill, or any other large business that has established itself as an independent legal entity, separate from its human owners. Smithfield and Cargill became corporations to limit the liability to their respective owners, and to allow these enterprises to profit from the confinement, concentration, deprivation, and violent disassembly of thinking, feeling individuals, unimpeded and without dissolution, should its owners change or die.

Another example of a "corporation," would be the Monsanto Company, an American-based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that some of the opportunists claim to vehemently oppose. More about that later.

PETA, however, is a "non-profit corporation," or essentially a "charity." Their "corporate" status allows them to implement animal rights campaigns, conduct animal cruelty investigations, and effect positive social change, unimpeded and without dissolution, should its board of directors change or die. PETA does not operate for profit, and unlike "corporations," they are prohibited from distributing profits made from their charitable activities to their board members or employees. So where the presidents of companies like Smithfield and Monsanto can pay their executives exorbitant salaries from their profits, PETA cannot. In fact, PETA paid its president, Ingrid Newkirk, just over $38,000 last year, her highest salary yet. Directors of corporations can get very rich from violently disassembling animals for their lucrative parts, conversely, animal rights activists cannot get rich from saving animals from abject suffering.

PETA are clearly not "corporate bullies." Statements such as "we are not attacking activists, we're attacking corporate bullies" are just so many pretty words. The opportunists are not "attacking corporate bullies," they're siding with them.

The "PETA Kills Animals" template of attacks (PETA kills adoptable animals/PETA are terrorists/PETA doesn't want you to have pets/PETA throws animals in dumpsters) is the bastard love-child of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a food and beverage industry front group protecting the interests of corporate donors like Smithfield, Cargill, and Monsanto, and when the opportunists distribute the "PETA Kills Animals" product, they're effectively siding with corporations against activists, no two ways about it. One cannot "rage against Monsanto," and simultaneously protect their interests.

For the opportunists, protecting their own interests as animal consumers clearly supersedes their so-called anti-corporate agenda, for they are admittedly "People for Eating Tasty Animals," and appear to be very much on-board with furthering the Center for Consumer Freedom's anti-animal/pro Monsanto campaign. When the opportunists lament about their comrades in arms, they may pretend to be speaking of their fellow "PETA Kills Animals" franchisees who are currently in deep shit with PETA, but they're also speaking of corporations like Smithfield and Monsanto. For they are ALL in this thing together, whether they want to own it or not.

At the very least, I hope that the next time the opportunists are raking the remains of uneaten pigs into their trash cans, the remains of formerly friendly individuals who exceeded dogs and cats in intellect, and possessed their very same capacity for affection, they'll examine their own hypocrisies for a change, and see which interests their attacks on PETA actually protect.

I reiterate: PETA is staffed by animal rights activists, and these activists are individuals who work very hard to save animals all over the world from abject suffering. It is painful and thankless work. So when the "Jane/John Does" of this world accuse PETA of egregious animal abuse and neglect, they're accusing the individuals who work and volunteer for PETA of those crimes, and it is the opinion of this writer that PETA MUST pursue these defamation cases on THOSE individuals' behalf. The opportunists need to stay the FUCK out of animal rights issues. This is not their playground. This is life and death for animals.

So meet the opportunists, people. Making "Anonymous" about their own personal vendettas, one fucked-up Twitter campaign at a time.

Sincerely,

Mary Tully